.LSS'lS 


Division. 

Section 


L'^S'^b 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/statusoflaborinaOOsulz 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


f 


V 


J 

t 

•»  * 


f,  ' 


A 


r  N 


i  ^ 


4 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN 
ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


MAYER  SULZBERGER,  LL.D. 


PHILADELPHIA 

THE  DROPSIE  (X)LLEGE  EOR  HEBREW 
AND  CXIGNATi:  ElARNING 


1923 


Printed  at  THE  CONAT  PRESS,  Philadelphia,  Penna.,  U.S.A. 


TO  THE 


HONORABLE  ROBERT  VON  MOSCHZISKER, 
CHIEF  JUSTICE  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 
THIS  LITTLE  WORK  IS  DEDICATED  IN  TOKEN 
OF  OUR  ANCIENT  AND  AFFECTIONATE 

FRIENDSHIP. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL* 


PREFACE 

The  conclusions  reached  in  the  following  four  lectures 
will  scarcely  meet  with  ready  acquiescence,  since  they 
depart  from  notions  very  generally  entertained. 

Their  form  too  is  not  according  to  the  conventional 
standard.  There  has  been  no  attempt  at  dogmatism  and 
no  effort  to  achieve  literary  grace. 

Their  object  was  to  attract  the  attention  and  arouse 
the  efforts  of  the  students  of  the  “Dropsie  College  for  Hebrew 
and  Cognate  Learning,”  to  follow  the  author’s  procedure 
in  investigating  the  subject  without  preconceived  opinions, 
and  to  stimulate  research  in  similar  directions. 

To  accomplish  this  purpose,  the  author  deemed  it  best 
to  cite  at  length  the  data  on  which  he  worked  and  to  show 
the  process  whereby  he  reached  his  conclusions. 

Needless  to  say,  the  texts  from  which  he  worked,  no¬ 
where  state,  in  so  many  words,  the  conclusions  arrived  at 
by  him.  Half  a  century’s  acquaintance  with  witnesses 
and  their  testimony  has  convinced  him  that  no  narrative, 
however  sincere,  ever  tells  the  whole  story.  There  appears 
to  be  a  feature  of  the  human  mind  which  is  averse  to  stating 
facts  that  are  so  familiar  to  the  narrator,  that  he  sub¬ 
consciously  assumes  that  everybody  knows  them  as  well 
as  himself,  and  that  to  repeat  them  would  be  absurd. 
Hence  the  true  meaning  of  a  witness’  narrative  is  to  be 
found  not  only  in  what  he  expressly  says,  but  also  in  what 

*A  course  of  four  lectures  read  before  the  Dropsie  College  For  Hebrew  and 
Cognate  Learning,  January  14,  16,  23  and  February  4,  1923. 


1 


2 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


he  does  not  say,  but  which  may  be  fairly  implied  from  the 
words  used. 

On  this  principle,  the  author  has,  on  occasion,  acted, 
and  hence  are  derived  some  conclusions  which  may,  at  first 
sight,  seem  bizarre. 

This  method  also  involves  the  necessity,  or  at  least  the 
desirability,  of  setting  out  texts  in  full  wherever  they  are 
made  use  of.  It  follows  that  some  of  them  are  stated  more 
than  once,  and  that  ungainliness  in  the  presentation  results. 

The  desire  to  make  the  lectures  educative  is  the  only 
excuse  for  such  defects. 

The  author  hopes,  however,  that  he  has  made  at  least 
a  beginning  toward  a  better  comprehension  of  the  labor 
question  in  ancient  Israel. 


I 

The  reader  of  the  English  versions  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  must  have  been  struck  by  the  frequency  with 
which  he  finds  “the  stranger,  the  fatherless  and  the  widow” 
mentioned  together.  The  coupling  of  the  rank  outsider, 
with  those  who  apparently  belong  to  the  most  intimate 
circle  of  the  insiders,  arouses  attention. 

An  easy  explanation  of  the  phenomenon  is  that  these 
classes  are  dependent  upon  the  gracious  kindness  of  the 
community  and  that,  in  this  respect,  they  stand  on  common 
ground.  This  answer  leaves  us  uninformed. 

Why  should  every  stranger,  every  fatherless  child, 
every  widow  be  thrown  on  public  charity? 

No  intelligent  government  would  tolerate  the  influx 
of  large  masses  of  aliens  who  could  do  nothing  for  the  com¬ 
munity  but  would  be  a  mere  burden. 

Moreover,  most  fatherless  children  and  most  widows 
would  have  family  connections  who  would  provide  for  them 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


3 


and  many  must  have  had  shares  in  estates  which  precluded 
the  necessity  of  public  charity. 

It  is  true  that  the  common  translation  of  these  words, 
gevj  yatom  and  almanah  by  stranger,  fatherless  and  widow 
has  much  justification.  Undoubtedly  they  all,  on  some 
occasions,  have  these  meanings. 

We  must,  however,  keep  in  mind,  that  in  the  Hebrew 
as  in  all  other  languages,  ancient  and  modern,  there  are 
many  words  which  have  more  than  one  meaning  and  that 
these  various  meanings  are  sometimes  conspicuously  far 
apart  and  often  seem  unrelated  to  each  other. 

Take  as  an  example,  this  very  word  stranger  in  our 
own  language.  Murray’s  Dictionary  (volume  9,  pp.  1079- 
1081)  lists  twenty-five  meanings  for  it,  covering  as  might 
be  expected,  a  wide  range  of  thought.  That  it  stands  for 
“one  who  belongs  to  another  country”,  everybody  knows, 
but  that  on  certain  occasions  it  means  the  British  coin 
called  “the  guinea”,  few  would  guess,  though,  on  reflection, 
many  of  us  will  realize  that  here  at  home,  five-dollar  gold 
pieces  may  fairly  be  called  “strangers”  by  the  most  of  us. 

The  moral  is  that  times,  circumstances,  even  caprices 
cause  the  attribution  of  new  meanings  to  well-known  words, 
and  that  such  new  meanings  become  at  times  general  and 
at  times  merely  narrow  and  technical. 

If  we  then  find  that  the  general  meanings  of  ger, 
yatom  and  almanah  in  the  Biblical  versions  leave  us 
puzzled  in  the  endeavor  to  discover  why  this  stranger 
should  be  thrust  into  the  very  heart  of  the  national  house¬ 
hold,  and  why  orphanage  and  widowhood  should  be  con¬ 
stantly  subject  to  attacks  which  must  be  fended  off,  it  will 
be  reasonable  to  seek  for  an  explanation  in  any  direction 
which  may  give  us  light. 

Acting  on  this  hint  we  may  fairly  inquire  whether  the 


4 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


words  in  question  have  not  other  meanings  than  those 
accepted  by  the  versions. 

As  the  word  ger  starts  the  puzzle,  we  may  begin  with 
it.  That  it  means  stranger  by  the  rules  of  etymology  is 
true.  Etymology  is,  however,  not  the  sole  or  final  deter¬ 
mining  cause  of  all  the  meanings  of  words  as  historically 
developed. 

There  are  other  Hebrew  words  that  are  also  translated 
“stranger”:  nokri  {hen  nekar),  zar,  toshaby  sakir.  An 
analysis  of  the  passages  in  which  these  words  are  used,  shows 
that  at  a  stage  of  Hebrew  history,  as  early  at  least  as  the 
reign  of  David,  and  probably  earlier,  the  Hebrews  had 
divided  these  foreigners  into  two  great  classes,  the  one 
characterized  by  unmitigated  foreignness,  while  the  foreign¬ 
ness  of  the  other  class  was  modified  by  closer  social  relations. 
The  first  class — the  absolute  foreigners — were  the  zar  and 
the  nokri.  The  second  class — relative  foreigners — were  the 
gery  the  toshab  and  the  sakir. 

It  may  be  noted  that  in  the  progress  of  time,  some  of 
these  words  underwent  startling  changes  of  meaning. 

Zar,  for  instance,  from  being  practically  synonymous 
with  nokriy^  came  in  time  to  include  a  non-member  of  any 
particular  body,  in  which  sense  it  is  found  applied  even  to 
Hebrews  standing  outside  of  an  intimate  circle.* 

Nokri y  is  applied  in  general  to  the  unmitigated,  the  hostile 
alien.  But  in  his  case  there  is  one  important  exception,  to 
wit,  the  nokri  slave,  the  'ebed. 

While  it  is  true  that  the  word  that  interests  us  par¬ 
ticularly  is  gery  it  is  necessary  in  order  to  understand  it 
fully  that  we  should  comprehend  what  the  nokri  was  and 
ascertain  whether  the  ger  was  like  him,  or  if  he  was  not, 

iDeut.  32.16;  Isa.  1.7;  43.12;  61.5;  Jer.  5.19;  51.2;  Ezek.  11.9;  28.7,  10;  30.12; 
31.12;  Hosea  7.9;  8.7,  12;  Psalm  44.21;  81.10;  Job  19.15. 

sExod.  29.33;  30.33;  Lev.  22.10,  12,  13;  Num.  1.51;  3.10,  38;  17.5;  18.4,  7;Deut. 
25.5. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


5 


we  should  determine  in  what  respect  they  differed. 

Initially,  it  is  well  to  dispose  of  the  slaves.  ^ 

Among  the  ancient  nations  in  general  slavery  was  an 
important  institution.  It  represented  the  great  labor 
force._  While  the  masters  were  continually  ready  for  war 
or  actually  waging  it,  the  slaves  did  the  bulk  of  the  peace¬ 
ful  work  necessary  for  the  community. 

With  the  Hebrews  it  was  otherwise. 

Their  position  in  Egypt  was  not  such  as  enabled  them 
to  acquire  or  to  hold  others  in  slavery.  When,  soon  after 
the  Exodus,  the  invasion  of  Canaan  was  begun,  the  tribes 
Reuben  and  Gad  (later  joined  by  the  half-tribe  of  Man- 
asseh)  elected  to  remain  in  the  land  East  of  Jordan  and  the 
Dead  Sea,  because  they  judged  it  to  be  a  good  place  for 
cattle-raising.3  Being  a  pastoral  people,  by  inheritance, 
the  sight  of  the  goodly  land  took  away  their  ambition  to 
become  agriculturists  in  the  Westland.  Moses  acquiesced 
in  their  decision,  stipulating  however  that  their  soldiers 
should  accompany  the  other  tribes  in  the  war  against 
Canaan.  They  were  to  leave  “their  wives,  their  little  ones 
and  their  cattle”  in  the  land  beyond  Jordan  to  await  the 
return  of  the  menfolk  from  the  war.  If  there  had  been  any 
considerable  number  of  slaves,  there  would,  in  that  connec¬ 
tion,  have  been  some  mention  of  them.  At  most  there  could 
have  been  but  few  and  in  this  respect  the  other  tribes  were, 
without  doubt,  in  like  condition. 

The  slave  was  called  'ehed.  If  he  was  bought,  this 
term  was  supplemented  by  the  words  miknat  kesef  (bought 
for  money).  If  he  was  born  of  slave  parentage  in  the  house¬ 
hold,  he  was  called  ben-bayit  (son  of  the  house),  or  yelid 
bayit  (born  in  the  house),  or  ben-amah  (son  of  the  hand¬ 
maid),  these  three  terms  being  nearly  or  quite  synonymous.  ^ 

Something,  by  the  way,  should  be  said  concerning 


»Num.  32.1-42. 


6  THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 

the  mode  in  which  these  words  have  been  rendered  by  the 
translators.  They  are  all  compound  nouns,  and  should  be 
so  treated.  The  versions,  however,  analyze  the  expressions 
and  translate  the  component  elements  separately.  For 
instance,  in  Genesis  15.3  Abraham  complains  to  God:  ‘T 
am  childless  and  my  hen~hayit  will  be  my  heir.”  This,  in 
effect,  characterizes  the  relation  as  being  a  kind  of  qualified 
adoption.  The  versions  render  “one  born  in  my  house  is 
to  be  mine  heir,”  ignoring  the  fact  that  a  man’s  own  son 
is  usually  born  in  his  house.  The  rendering  should  have 
been:  “I  am  childless  and  my  house-born  slave  will  be  my 
heir.”  The  word  is  used  in  this  sense  in  Ecclesiastes  2.7. 

And  so  with  yelid-hayit. 

In  Genesis  14.14  when  Abraham  enters  into  a  campaign 
to  release  Lot  who  had  been  captured,  he  armed  his  trained 
home-born  slaves  {hanikaw  y elide  heto) ,  pursued  and 
defeated  the  ravishers.  The  versions  again  seem  to  miss 
the  point,  though  A.  V.  senses  it. 

So  too  in  the  17th  chapter  of  Genesis  where  the  cove¬ 
nant  of  Abraham  is  established.  The  12th  and  13th  verses 
are  careful  to  enforce  the  obligation  to  perform  the  rite 
on  slaves,  whether  miknat  kesef  or  yelid  hayit.  The  words 
are  used  in  the  same  sense  in  Leviticus  22.11  and  in  Jere¬ 
miah  2.14. 

In  considering  the  position  of  the  slave  we  must  always 
keep  in  mind  that  the  Hebrews  had  a  rooted  aversion  to 
the  system.  To  them  it  seemed  an  institution  “accursed”^ 
and  this  attitude  made  the  lot  of  their  slave  essentially 
different  from  his  condition  among  other  nations  and  from 
forms  of  slavery  persisting  to  our  own  time. 

The  conspicuous  feature  that  contributed  to  his 
betterment  was  his  admission  to  participation  in  the  family 
worship. 


<Gen.  9.25;  Josh.  9.23. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


7 


Tradition  refers  this  custom  to  the  most  ancient  times.  ( 
The  covenant  of  Abraham  was  to  be  entered  into  not  only  ' 
by  every  male  of  the  immediate  family,  but  the  master’s ) 
obligation  was  to  enter  every  male  slave. ^ 

The  female  slave  (the  amah)  was  even  in  more  intimate 
relationship.  She  was  often  the  daughter  of  Hebrew 
parents.  Occasionally  the  master  bought  her  either  to 
make  her  his  own  wife^  or  the  wife  of  his  son.^  The  posi¬ 
tion  of  the  Hebrew  slave  was  not  one  of  misery  or  degrada¬ 
tion.  Eliezer,  the  'ehed  of  Abraham,  is  called  the  ruler 
{moshel)  of  Abraham’s  possessions.^  He  it  is  who  is  en¬ 
trusted  bv  his  master  with  the  all-important  mission  of 
selecting  and  procuring  a  fitting  wife  for  Isaac,  and  when 
he  has  found  her,  he  presents  her  with  rare  jewels  and 
raiment  which  he  had  brought. ^  He  is  treated  with  the 
consideration  of  an  equal  not  only  by  Abraham  but  by 
Laban. 

Eliezer  was  one  of  Abraham’s  home-born  slaves,  a 
hen-bayitd° 

An  example  equally  striking  is  found  in  1  Chronicles 
2.34,  35.  Sheshan,  a  Judean  magnate,  gives  his  daughter  in 
marriage  to  his  Egyptian  ‘ebed  Yarha.  Of  course,  as  an 
*ebed,  he  had  been  naturalized,  but  he  was  an  ‘ebed  none 
the  less. 

The  Book  of  Proverbs  (17.2)  lays  it  down  that  a  wise 
slave  {‘ebed  maskil)  shall  not  only  be  preferred  to  a  profligate 
son  {ben  mebish),  but  shall  take  the  latter’s  share  in  the 
father’s  estate  with  the  upright  brothers.  These  are  not 
mere  instances  of  individual  kindliness.  They  are  the 
expression  of  rooted  national  convictions. 

Among  the  Hebrews  the  slave  was  not  obliged  to  / 
struggle  for  recognition  as  a  human  being.  They  held  in 
abhorrence  the  views  of  other  nations,  like  the  Babylonian, 

‘Gen.  17.9,  11,  12,  13.  «Exod.  21.8.  ’Exod.  21.9. 

‘Gen.  24.2.  »Gen.  24.53.  loGen.  15.3. 


8 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


as  expressed  or  implied  in  the  Hammurabi  code,  under 
which  the  slave  was  a  mere  chattel,  whose  owner  could 
kill  him  without  responsibility  because  he  was  merely 
destroying  a  piece  of  his  property,  the  loss  of  which  was 
his  own  and  concerned  no  one  else. 

Far  other  views  were  reflected  in  the  Hebrew  laws. 

Personal  injuries  to  a  slave  were  crimes  punishable 
by  the  State.  If  a  master  maim  his  slave  so  that  he  or 
she  loses  a  tooth  or  an  eye,  the  slave  goes  free.” 

On  the  subject  of  the  slave’s  status  in  the  Hebrew 
household,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  quote  a  few  passages 
from  the  admirable  Hebrdische  Archdologie  of  Professor 
Benzinger.”  The  translation  is  ours: 

“The  slaves  were  also  part  of  the  family.  In  passing 
judgment  on  Israelitish  slavery,  one  may  not  start  with  the 
prepossessions  derived  from  contemplating  modern  slavery 
among  Christian  peoples.  .  .  .  There  is  practically 

not  enough  difference  between  the  position  of  the  slaves 
and  that  of  the  other  members  of  the  household  to  warrant 
us  in  expending  compassion  upon  them  as  if  they  were 
miserable  and  unfortunate.  ...  In  the  cultural  state  ' 
of  the  times,  Hebrew  slavery  was  a  blessing  for  both  master  | 
and  servant.” 

“We  learn  that  the  slaves  were  uniformly  treated  as 
members  of  the  family,  for  whose  well-being  the  master 
cared  as  for  that  of  his  children.  They  were  not  mere 
dumb  slaves,  but  were  often  asked  for  their  opinion  and 
advice  (1  Sam.  9.6ff;  25.14ff).” 

“As  member  of  the  family,  the  slave  was  admitted  to 
the  family  worship,  wherefore  he  had  to  be  circumcised. 
Thereby,  too,  he  became  competent  to  carry  on  and  to 
inherit  the  family  worship.  By  reason  of  this  religious 

iiExod.  21.26,  27. 

^^Hebrdische  Archdologie  von  Dr.  J.  Benzinger  (Freiburg  i.  B.  und  Leipzig,  1894) 
pp.  159-162. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


9 


association,  he  received  kindly  and  fatherly  treatment  just 
as  do  to-day  the  slaves  in  Islam.  The  ‘brotherly  feeling’ 
among  members  of  the  religion  has  never  been  whittled 
down  to  a  mere  phrase,  as  in  the  Christian  world,  but  is  a 
very  real  power.”  Thus  far  Benzinger. 

This  favorable  view  of  the  condition  of  the  Hebrew 
slave  is,  however,  not  universal.  The  dissenting  opinion 
seems  to  be  based  on  one  striking  text,  which  has  in  it  a 
phrase  singularly  like  the  Babylonian  principle.  It  is 
Exodus  21.20,  21  and  reads:  “If  a  man  smite  his  bond- 
man  {'ehed)  or  his  bondwoman  {amah)  with  a  rod  and  he 
die  under  his  hand,  he  shall  surely  be  punished  {nakom 
yinnakem).  Notwithstanding,  if  he  continue  a  day  or  two, 
he  shall  not  be  punished  {lo  yukkam) ;  for  he  is  his  money.” 

From  this  last  phrase,  some  have  drawn  the  conclusion 
that  a  slave  was  looked  upon  as  a  mere  piece  of  property 
and  not  as  a  fellow-being.  Such  a  view  totally  ignores  the 
legal  provisions  above  cited  and  counts  them  as  naught. 
The  cruel  words  ”  he  is  his  money”  are  accepted  as  over¬ 
riding  the  whole  course  of  the  legislation. 

These  critics  have  overlooked  the  well-known  fact 
that  speech  and  writing  exhibit  an  extraordinary  servility 
to  familiar  words  and  phrases.  Laws  and  customs  of  pre¬ 
historic  ages  were  contemporaneously  summarized  in 
pithy  sayings  and  though  such  laws  and  customs  were 
from  time  to  time  changed  and  ultimately  discarded,  the 
popular  phrase  enjoyed  and  enjoys  a  stupid  immortality. 

‘‘He  is  his  money,”  when  it  was  first  uttered  at  a  primi¬ 
tive  period  anterior  to  the  Pentateuchal  legislation,  was, 
probably,  a  fairly  correct  statement  of  this  particular  social 
relation.  In  the  lapse  of  time,  the  relation  underwent  a 
profound  change,  but  the  phrase  lived  on  and  even  now 
survives  in  the  text,  as  a  pregnant  reminder  of  archaic 
history. 


10 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


This  is,  by  no  means,  the  only  instance  in  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  of  adherence  to  dead  words  and  sayings.  The  legal' 
conception  that  a  man  violating  the  law  should  be  ade¬ 
quately  punished,  was,  in  pre-historic  times,  when  the 
law  of  retaliation  represented  the  stage  of  development 
which  had  then  been  reached,  formulated  in  the  maxim: 
“Life  for  life,  eye  for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  hand  for  hand,, 
foot  for  foot.”  This  became  a  current  phrase  and  was 
transmitted  from  age  to  age.  Needless  to  say,  it  is  not  a 
statement  of  Pentateuchal  law,  and  yet,  in  one  form  or 
another,  it  occurs  three  times  in  the  Pentateuch. In  each 
of  the  cases  where  it  is  used,  punishment  of  offences  is 
provided  for,  but  not  the  punishment  that  would  be  required 
by  the  maxim. u 

This  maxim  was,  among  the  Hebrews  of  three  thousand 
years  ago,  a  mere  phrase  and  yet  it  is  to-day  frequently 
quoted  as  a  summary  of  Hebrew  criminal  law. 

There  is,  of  course,  a  real  difficulty  in  understanding 
the  text,  a  difficulty  which  no  translation  that  I  know  of 
has  overcome. 

The  words  nakom  yinnakem  are  generally  translated 
“shall  surely  be  punished.”  Such  an  expression  would  be 
without  any  definite  or  practical  meaning.  It  specifies 
neither  the  kind  nor  the  quantum  of  punishment  and  gives 
no  clue  as  to  who  is  to  administer  it.  The  probability  i& 
that  the  words  constitute  a  technical  law-term.  Rashi 
understands  it  to  mean  “he  shall  die  by  the  sword, 
relying  on  the  law  of  Num.  35.18:  “If  he  smote  him  with 
a  hand-weapon  of  wood  whereby  a  man  may  die,  and  he 
died,  he  is  a  murderer;  the  murderer  shall  surely  be  put  to 
death.”  He  opines,  however,  that  when  death  is  thus 
instantaneously  produced  by  the  master’s  chastisement  of 

«Exod.  21.23,  24,  25;  Lev.  24.20;  Deut.  19.21. 

i^See  my  Ancient  Hebrew  Law  of  Homicide,  pp.  119-125. 

'^The  expression  hereb  nokemet  (the  avenging  sword)  is  found  in  Lev.  26.25. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


11 


the  slave,  there  must  have  been  something  more  than  the 
customary  rod  wherewith  masters  were  entitled  to  punish 
slaves,  something  answering  to  the  expression  in  the  Num¬ 
bers  text,  something  which  added  a  deadly  quality  to  the 
rod.  The  fair  inference  from  the  text  is  that  when  death 
resulted  immediately,  the  law  presumed  that  this  deadly 
quality  was  present  and  this  presumption  was  not  to  be 
contradicted.  If,  however,  the  slave  did  not  die  on  the 
same  day,  the  presumption  did  not  hold  and  therefore  the 
master  was  not  guilty  of  murder,  he  having  exercised  the 
ordinary  right  of  corporeally  chastising  his  slave,  and  the 
fact  that  by  the  slave’s  death  the  master  lost  a  valuable 
piece  of  property,  heightened  the  presumption  of  his 
innocence  of  murder  when  death  did  not  immediately 
follow. 

Under  all  the  circumstances  we  need  not  hesitate  to 
accept  Professor  Benzinger’s  view,  which  is  strikingly 
fortified  by  Kent  and  Bailey  in  their  excellent  one-volume 
‘‘History  of  the  Hebrew  Commonwealth.”  These  are 
their  words:  “The  chief  claim  of  the  Hebrew  world  to  our 
regard  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  ideals  of  democracy  which 
to-day  are  winning  acceptance  among  all  civilized  races 
first  developed  within  this  area.  .  .  “It  was  in 

the  soil  of  the  barren  steppe  lands  that  encircle  Palestine 
and  among  the  nomadic  tribes  of  the  wilderness  that  the 
seeds  of  democracy  first  took  root”.  .  .  .  “Their  ideas 

regarding  the  fundamental  rights  of  man  and  his  duties  to 
his  fellow  were  expressed  in  definite  laws, and  all  later  demo¬ 
cratic  legislation  is  largely  an  unfolding  of  what  is  there 
set  forth  in  principle. 

“From  Israel  has  come  a  moral  code  based  on  the 
Ten  Commandments,  which  expresses,  as  well  as  mere 
laws  can,  the  fundamental  duties  of  man  to  God  and  to 

^Hlislory  of  the  Hebrew  Commonwealth  by  Albert  Edward  Bailey  and  Charles 
Foster  Kent,  New  York,  1920,  pp.  13  and  14. 


12  THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 

his  fellow-man.  It  sprang  from  an  instinct  for  freedom 
and  brotherhood,  perhaps  the  earliest  and  certainly  the 
most  persistent  manifestation  of  that  instinct  among  the 
ancient  peoples  of  the  world.  It  is  this  code  that  is  the 
basis  not  only  of  the  constitutions  but  also  of  the  every¬ 
day  life  of  all  the  great  democracies  of  the  present  day.”*^ 

The  most  persuasive  evidence  of  the  Hebrews’  aversion 
to  slavery  is  that  there  is  no  mention  anywhere  that  in  the 
course  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  they  reduced  or  en¬ 
deavored  to  reduce  any  of  the  native  peoples  to  slavery. 
It  is  true  their  lands  were  taken  from  them  by  the  con¬ 
querors,  but  they  were  neither  exterminated  nor  driven  out 
nor  enslaved. 

To  understand  the  situation  it  is  necessary  to  get  a 
correct  view  of  the  Hebrew  invasion  of  Canaan.  We  have 
already  mentioned  that  the  movement  began  not  by  march¬ 
ing  in  a  direct  line  for  the  coveted  land,  but  to  take  as  the 
proper  starting-point,  the  land  east  of  the  Dead  Sea  and 
Jordan.  The  inhabitants  of  that  section  were  overcome 
and  the  Hebrews  had  thus  acquired  their  base  of  operations. 
In  consequence  of  the  action  of  the  tribes  of  Reuben  and 
Gad  (later  joined  by  the  half-tribe  of  Manasseh)  in  waiving 
all  claim  to  a  share  of  Canaan,  that  coveted  area  was  to 
be  divided  among  a  smaller  number  of  tribes  than  had  been 
originally  intended.  The  two  tribes  Simeon  and  Levi 
were  also  excluded,  and  had  no  part,  as  tribes,  in  the  war 
against  Canaan  or  in  the  division  of  the  conquered  land. 

The  ancient  poem  called  ‘‘the  Blessing  of  Jacob” 
seems  to  point  to  the  exclusion  of  these  two  tribes  from  the 
fellowship  of  the  others,  by  reason  of  reprehensible  conduct. 
Their  doom  is  pronounced  in  these  words:  ‘‘I  will  divide 
them  in  Jacob  and  scatter  them  in  Israel. 

While  we  have  no  authentic  details  of  the  fate  of  the 

i*Gen.  49.7. 


^Ubid.,  p.  355. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


13 


Simeon  tribe,  the  great  probability  is  that  it  was  disinte¬ 
grated  and  that  its  members  attached  themselves  to  any 
of  the  other  tribes  that  they  preferred  or  that  were  willing 
to  receive  them. 

Levi  too  ceased  to  exist  as  a  tribe,  though  it  finally 
achieved  a  re-integration  of  a  kind.  It  had  not  a  tribal 
territory  of  its  own,  but  its  members  obtained  slices  in 
sections  of  the  other  tribes.  It  regained  too  a  tribal  con¬ 
sciousness  and  reached  a  position  of  dignity  as  guardian 
of  the  law  and  of  the  sanctuary. 

In  the  narratives  of  the  war  neither  Simeon  nor  Levi 
is  mentioned.  Levi,  however,  obtains  a  favorable  notice, 
in  accordance  with  events  that  happened  long  after.  The 
reason  for  its  non-participation  is  stated  to  be  that  it  was 
“to  bear  the  ark  of  the  covenant”  and  that  “the  Lord  is 
his  inheritance. 

There  were  thus  left  but  nine  tribes  that  were  to 
share  the  land  of  Canaan  among  them.  The  military 
authorities  evidently  made  a  theoretical  plan  of  the  coun¬ 
try,  dividing  it  into  nine  districts,  to  the  conquest  of  each 
one  of  which  a  particular  tribe  was  assigned.  Naturally 
the  conquering  tribe  was  to  be  settled  on  the  territory  it 
had  acquired. 

For  the  great  enterprise  which  they  were  about  to 
undertake,  the  Hebrews  had  certain  qualifications  and  per¬ 
haps  greater  disadvantages.  Their  experience  in  agricul¬ 
ture  was  in  effect  characterized  as  inadequate.  “The  land 
whither  thou  goest  in  to  possess  it,  is  not  as  the  land  ot 
Egypt,  from  whence  ye  came  out,  where  thou  didst  sow 
thy  seed,  and  didst  water  it  with  thy  foot,  as  a  garden  of 
herbs;  but  the  land  whither  ye  go  to  possess  it,  is  a  land  ot 
hills  and  valleys,  and  drinketh  water  as  the  rain  of  heaven 
cometh  down.”^° 


«Deut.  10.8,  9. 


20Deut.  11.10,  11. 


14 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


And  the  contingency  is  foreshadowed  “that  there  shall 
be  no  rain,  and  the  ground  shall  not  yield  her  fruit;  and 
ye  perish.  .  Moreover  in  the  many  arts  and  industries 
of  Egypt  they  had  not  had  a  large  share.  They  had, 
naturally  viewed  and  admired  the  great  works  scattered 
through  that  country,  but  their  part  in  adding  to  them, 
was,  according  to  our  accounts,  humble.  “They  (the 
Egyptians)  did  set  over  them  (the  Hebrews)  taskmasters 
to  afflict  them  with  their  burdens.  And  they  built  for 
Pharaoh  store-cities,  Pithom  and  Raamses.”  “And  they 
(the  Egyptians)  made  their  (the  Hebrews’)  lives  bitter 
with  hard  service,  in  mortar  and  in  brick,  and  in  all  manner 
of  service  in  the  field.  .  . 

Nevertheless,  the  prospect  was  one  of  great  hopeful¬ 
ness.  Canaan  loomed  before  them  as  a  land  containing 
“great  and  goodly  cities  which  thou  didst  not  build  and 
houses  full  of  all  good  things  which  thou  didst  not  fill,  and 
cisterns  hewn  out  which  thou  didst  not  hew,  vineyards 
and  olive-trees  which  thou  didst  not  plant.”  “A  good 
land,  a  land  of  brooks  of  water,  of  fountains  and  depths 
springing  forth  in  valleys  and  hills;  a  land  of  wheat  and 
barley  and  vines  and  fig-trees  and  pomegranates;  a  land  of 
olive-trees  and  honey;  a  land  wherein  thou  shalt  eat  bread 
(lehem)  without  scarceness,  thou  shalt  not  lack  anything 
in  it;  a  land  whose  stones  are  iron  and  out  of  whose  hills 
thou  mayest  dig  brass. 

And  they  were  to  be  the  owners  of  this  land  wherein 
they  would  prosper  not  only  in  agriculture  but  in  the  arts 
and  in  commerce.  Visions  of  imitating  the  glories  of 
Memphis  and  Thebes  in  a  capital  city  of  their  own  also 
floated  before  their  minds. 

Confident  of  easy  victory  they  gave  little  thought  to 
the  natives  whose  lands  they  were  to  take.  They  would 

2iDeut.  11.17.  22Exod.  1.11,  14.  s^Deut.  6.10,  11;  8.7,  8,  9. 

24Deut.  12.5-14,  21,  26;  14.23-25;  15.20;  16.2-16;  17.8-10;  18.6;  26.2;  31.11. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL  15 

straightway  destroy  “the  Hittite,  the  Amorite,  the  Cana- 
anite,  the  Perizzite,  the  Hivite  and  the  Jebusite.’'^^ 

There  were,  however,  voices  counselling  prudence  and 
caution.  A  large  settled  population,  they  were  warned, 
could  not  be  disposed  of  suddenly:  “The  Lord  thy  God  will 
cast  out  these  nations  before  thee  hy  little  and  little]  thou 
mayest  not  consume  them  quickly,  lest  the  beasts  of  the 
field  increase  upon  thee.’’^® 

Moses  did  not  live  to  cross  Jordan  and  the  leadership 
devolved  on  Joshua,  whom  the  people,  in  eager  anticipation, 
willingly  followed.  In  this  mood,  caution  was  thrown  to 
the  winds.  The  cry  was:  “Clear  the  land  of  its  inhabitants 
and  we  will  go  in  and  enjoy  it.”  The  course  of  events 
soon  removed  their  illusions. 

Joshua  began  by  taking  Jericho  and  destroying  it 
with  all  its  inhabitants,  saving  only  Rahab  and  her  kins¬ 
folk.^’  The  city  of  ‘Ai  he  treated  with  the  same  severity.^^ 

Thereupon  the  campaign  took  another  turn.  A  small 
section  of  the  natives  began  to  be  intimidated.  The 
Gibeonites,  despairing  of  resistance  by  force,  resorted  to 
cunning  and  deception.  They  sent  a  deputation  to  the 
leaders  of  Israel  and  by  false  representations  induced  the 
latter  to  agree  to  a  treaty  of  peace. 

This  treaty  was  concluded  under  the  belief  that  the 
deputation  represented  a  territory  beyond  that  which 
Israel  had  planned  to  conquer,  “a  very  far  country,”  to 
use  their  own  words. 

A  few  days  later  the  fraud  was  discovered  and  a  great 
popular  clamor  was  raised  that  the  treaty  should  be  dis¬ 
regarded.  The  council,  however,  rejected  these  demands 
to  revoke  a  word  solemnly  given,  saying:  “We  have  sworn 
unto  them  by  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Israel;  now,  therefore, 
we  may  not  touch  thern.”^" 

“Exod.  23.23,  28;  Deut.  20.17.  “Exod.  23.29;  Deut.  7.22. 

”Jo3h.  6.22-25.  *sjosh.  8.26,  ^Josh.  9.3-15.  »ojo3h.  9.19. 


16 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


At  this  point  their  Egyptian  experience  suggested 
the  remedy.  They  had  been  gerim  in  Egypt  and  as  such 
had  been  not  only  incapable  of  owning  land,  but  had  been 
subject  to  feudal  servitude,  an  incident  of  which  was,  what 
in  our  modern  states  is  called  the  corvee^ — the  liability 
to  be  called  for  a  certain  time  in  each  year  to  labor  on 
public  works.  In  Egypt  it  was  doubtless  called  the  mas^ 
the  superintendents  of  the  laborers  on  public  works  being 
known  as  sare  missim.  The  latter  word  was  apparently  a 
plural  form  for  a  singular  mas  not  used  in  the  narrative. 
The  labors  which  these  feudatories  had  to  perform  were 
called  siblot,^^  the  plural  form  of  sebel,  which  word  in  another 
form  is,  in  at  least  one  other  instance,  used  to  describe 
mas-labor 

The  result  of  the  treaty  with  Gibeon,  as  modified,  was 
that  the  Gibeonites  lost  their  lands  to  the  Israelites  and 
were  moreover  reduced  to  a  condition  not  unlike  the 
peasants  of  the  Middle  Ages,  that  is  to  become  laborers  on 
the  land,  subject  however  in  addition  to  being  called  upon 
to  work  for  the  state  during  a  certain  portion  of  the  year. 

“This  we  will  do  to  them  (the  Gibeonites)  and  let 
them  live;  ...  So  they  became  hewers  of  wood  and 
drawers  of  water  to  kol  ha-‘edah”  (Meaning:  public 
service.) 34  And  Joshua’s  speech  to  the  deputation  is  “.  .  . 
There  shall  never  fail  to  be  of  you  bondmen,  both  hewers 
of  wood  and  drawers  of  water /or  the  house  of  my  God”^^ 
And  they  acquiesced. 3^ 

This  treaty  with  Gibeon  became  the  key-note  of  the 
new  policy.  The  sanguinary  project  of  exterminating  the 
natives  and  the  more  moderate  purpose  of  driving  them 
out  were  both  abandoned.  It  was  now  resolved  that  the 
natives  should  be  reduced  to  the  condition  which  the 

siExod.  22,20;  23.9;  Lev.  19.34;  Deut.  10.19;  23.8.  »2Exod.  1.11. 

»»Gen.  49.15.  wjosh.  9.20,  21.  sejosh.  9.23.  sejosh.  9.25-27. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


17 


Gibeonites  had  submitted  to.  They  were  to  become  geritn 
(landless)  and  subject  to  the  mas. 

The  tribes  were  now  ready  to  go  on  with  the  tasks 
severally  assigned  to  them.  Their  successes  were  at  first 
not  complete  nor  even  very  important.  Not  until  the 
Northern  tribes  had  formed  a  union  and  acted  together 
did  they  succeed  in  subduing  the  natives  and  relegating 
them  to  the  position  of  gerim  subject  to  the  mas.  The 
account  is  set  forth  in  the  Book  of  Judges. ^7  While  eight 
of  the  tribes,  namely  Manasseh,  Ephraim,  Zebulun,  Asher, 
Naphtali,  Dan,  Judah  and  Benjamin  had  at  least  won 
some  triumphs  before  the  union  of  the  tribes,  Issachar  had 
totally  failed.  The  record  in  Judges  is  silent  on  this  humili¬ 
ating  event.  Our  information,  on  the  subject,  is  obtained 
from  the  ancient  poem  called  the  Blessing  of  Jacob,  which 
contains  this  remarkable  passage: 

“Issachar  is  a  large-boned  ass. 

Couching  down  between  the  sheepfolds. 

For  he  saw  a  rest-place  that  it  was  good. 

And  the  land  that  it  was  pleasant. 

And  he  bowed  his  shoulder  to  bear  (lishol), 

And  became  for  mas-^ohed.”^^ 

We  have  here  the  story  of  the  only  complete  failure 
among  the  invading  forces.  Instead  of  subjecting  the 
natives  to  the  mas  'obed  as  did  four  of  the  tribes,  or  making 
treaties  of  amity  with  them,  as  did  four  other  tribes,  Issachar 
was  itself  overcome  and  made  subject  to  the  mas-'obed 
by  the  natives  of  the  district.  The  prosperity  and  comfort 
enjoyed  by  the  tribe  in  its  new  home  is  described  in  a  tone 
of  lofty  contempt  for  a  spirit  so  mean  as  to  be  satisfied 
with  subjection  however  profitable. 

It  is  only  just  to  the  memory  of  the  Issachar  tribe, 
to  remember  that  in  the  decisive  battle  with  Sisera  it  showed 


*Uud.  1.19-25. 


”Gen.  49.15. 


18 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


that  it  had  redeemed  itself.  In  the  great  ancient  poem  of 
Deborah39  its  achievements  are  lauded:  “And  the  princes 
of  Issachar,  were  with  Deborah;  As  was  Issachar,  so  was 
Barak;  Into  the  valley  they  rushed  forth  at  his  feet."'*® 
The  accepted  opinion  seems  to  be  that  Barak,  the  general 
of  the  Hebrew  army,  and  the  victor  in  that  glorious  com¬ 
bat,  was  of  Issachar,  and  it  has  even  been  suggested  by 
respectable  authority  that  Deborah  herself  was  of  that 
tribe.  The  fact  that  Tola  of  Issachar  was  one  of  the 
shofetim  of  Israeb^  attests  the  regard  in  which  the  tribe 
came  to  be  held. 

The  poem  further  shows  that  the  isolation  of  these 
northern  tribes  had  gradually  yielded  to  a  desire  for  a 
more  or  less  intimate  unity,  and  that  this  confederacy  was 
known  as  Israel  or  Beth  Joseph. 

It  was  doubtless  after  this  had  been  accomplished, 
that  the  conquest  of  the  north  country  was  completed  and 
the  mas  ‘obed  was  imposed  on  all  the  indigenous  inhabitants 
who  remained  in  the  land.  That  some  of  them  emigrated 
to  the  Judaic  or  southern  territory  would  appear  from  a 
casual  statement  in  Chronicles,  in  the  account  of  Hezekiah’s 
Passover."*^  Enumerating  the  classes  of  participants  in 
that  high  festival,  it  mentions  “the  gerim  that  came  out 
of  the  land  of  Israel  and  dwelt  in  Judah.”  The  attraction, 
probably,  was  that  in  Judah,  they  were  not  subject  to  the 
mas-ohed^^ 

Whether  some  emigrated  to  other  countries  our  records 
do  not  inform  us.  No  conjecture  on  this  point  should 
omit  to  consider  the  scanty  means  of  transportation  at  the 
time  and  the  improbability  of  a  great  mass  of  people  find- 

»»Jud.  5.1-31.  ‘ojud.  5.15.  «Jud.  10.1.  ‘2Chron.  30.25. 

<3The  natives  of  the  South  country  made  a  more  successful  stand  against  the 
invaders  than  did  those  of  the  North.  “Judah  could  not  drive  out  the  inhabitants  of 
the  valley  because  they  had  chariots  of  iron,”  (Jud.  1.19),  a  significant  forerunner  of 
the  effect  of  using  tanks  in  the  great  world-war.  “And  the  children  of  Benjamin  did 
not  drive  out  the  Jebusites  that  inhabited  Jerusalem;  but  the  Jebusites  dwelt  with 
the  children  of  Benjamin  in  Jerusalem,  unto  this  day.”  (Jud.  1.21.) 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL  19 

ing  employment  or  sustenance  in  strange  places  within 
their  reach. 

The  situation,  however,  presented  another  aspect  far 
more  important  than  mere  passion  or  sentiment. 

The  Hebrews  had  suddenly  come  into  control  of  a 
country  whose  land  they  divided  among  themselves  and 
this  land  had  to  be  cultivated.  A  relatively  small  num¬ 
ber  were  capable  farmers.  Moreover  the  natives  were 
practising  all  sorts  of  industries  which  the  Hebrews  had 
not  mastered. 

The  statesmanlike  genius  evident  in  the  whole  move¬ 
ment  did  not,  at  this  crisis,  fail. 

The  solution  proposed,  adopted  and  carried  into 
effect  was  that  the  native  population,  as  a  whole,  should 
remain  where  they  were.  True,  they  lost  their  land-holdings 
to  the  Hebrews.  They  did  not  however  lose  their  skill  or 
industry,  and  these  qualities  were  absolutely  needed  to 
maintain  and  develop  the  country.  The  precise  terms 
of  the  understanding  are  of  course  inaccessible  to  us,  but 
we  have  enough  information  to  obtain  a  general  idea  of 
them. 

That  the  relations  of  Hebrews  with  the  ger  were  quite 
friendly,  perhaps  too  friendly,  appears  sufficiently  from 
the  traditions. 

We  are  told  that  “the  children  of  Israel  dwelt  among 
the  Canaanites,  the  Hittites,  and  the  Amorites,  and  the 
Perizzites,  and  the  Hivites  and  the  Jebusites;  and  they  took 
their  daughters  to  be  their  wives,  and  gave  their  own 
daughters  to  their  sons,  and  served  their  gods.  “'*4 

Ezekiel,  perhaps  in  a  mood  of  irritation,  quotes  the 
tradition  thus:  “Thine  origin  and  thy  nativity  is  of  the 
land  of  the  Canaanite;  the  Amorite  was  thy  father,  and 
thy  mother  was  a  Hittite.’’^^ 


«Jud.  3.5. 


*‘Ezek.  16.3. 


20 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


And  Ezra  speaks  as  if  the  events  of  his  time  bore  out 
the  tradition.^® 

Let  us,  however,  first  ascertain  by  what  name  this 
non-Hebrew  population  was  called.  As  they  had  become 
an  element  of  the  whole  Hebrew  social  structure,  the 
multifarious  names  of  the  relatively  small  groups  into 
which  they  were  divided  would  soon  be  abandoned.  A 
new  name  would  be  applied  to  them  to  designate  their 
whole  body  as  against  the  body  of  Hebrews. 

That  name  was  gar,  used  sometimes  in  the  singular 
and  sometimes  as  a  collective  noun,  though  its  plural 
form  gerim  was  also  used.  A  little  reflection  will  supply 
the  reason.  Those  natives  were  strangers  in  blood  to  the 
Israelites  and  there  had  been  no  acquaintance  or  inter¬ 
course  with  them.  In  those  early  ages,  when  consciousness 
of  blood-relationship  produced  tribal  bodies,  all  outside 
the  ranks  were  strangers  indeed.  When  the  body  of  Israel¬ 
ites  was  brought  in  intimate  contact  with  the  body  of 
natives,  both  of  them  felt  that  they  were  strangers  to  each 
other.  The  fact  that  the  natives  would  soon  become  an 
integral  body  in  close  relationship  to  the  activities  of 
the  new  Hebrew  nation  could  not  at  first  mitigate  the 
strangeness  in  blood,  in  experience,  in  activities  and  in 
religious  practices.  Moreover  their  national  experience 
supplied  a  precedent.  Though  they  had  been  settled  in 
Egypt  for  centuries  in  relations  somewhat  similar  to  those 
which  they  now  imposed  on  the  Canaanites,  they  always 
viewed  themselves  as  having  been  gerim  in  Egypt.^^ 

It  behooves  us  now  to  return  to  the  other  classes 
called  strangers  by  the  versions.  First  among  these  was 
the  nokri.  Him,  the  Hebrews  looked  upon  as  the  hostile, 
the  unmitigated  alien. 

Here  are  instances: 


«Ezra  9.1,  2. 


«Exod.  22.20;  23.9;  Lev.  19.34;  Deut.  10.19. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


21 


1st.  There  were  two  kinds  of  flesh  abhorred  by  the 
Hebrews,  that  which  dieth  of  itself  (nebelah)  and  that 
which  is  torn  of  beasts  (terefah). 

The  nebelah,  odious  as  it  was,  might  be  sold  to  the 
nokri^^  The  terefah  was  still  more  objectionable  than  the 
nebelah.  The  antique  law  was  that  it  should  be  cast  to 
the  dogs.49  There  is  ground  for  the  assumption  that  the 
rigidity  of  this  rule  was,  in  the  course  of  time,  relaxed, 
since  an  express  ordinance  forbade  the  eating  of  the  terefah 
by  Hebrew  or  by  It  is  not  hazardous  to  conjecture 

that  it  might  be  given  or  sold  to  the  nokri,  no  allusion  to 
him  being  made  in  this  prohibitive  ordinance. 

2d.  No  hen-nekar  could  eat  of  the  Passover. 

3d.  An  Israelite  was  not  allowed  to  offer  for  sacrifice 
an  animal  procured  from  a  ben-nekar.^^ 

4th.  The  taking  of  interest  or  increase  for  money  or 
goods  loaned  to  another  is  a  highly  objectionable  act, 
but  it  is  nevertheless  allowed  in  the  case  of  a  nokriJ^ 

5th.  No  ben-nekar  should  be  allowed  in  the  Temple. s-* 

6th.  Perhaps  the  most  emphatic  example  is  presented 
by  the  spontaneous  exclamation  of  the  Levite  while  on 
his  journey.  When  night  fell  and  it  was  necessary  to 
find  shelter,  his  companion  pointed  out  a  city  that  lay 
before  them  as  a  convenient  stopping-place  for  the  night. 
The  Levite,  horrified,  replied:  “We  will  not  turn  aside 
into  a  nokri  city!”^^ 

7th.  Isaiah  reproaches  Judah  and  Jerusalem  that 
“they  please  themselves  in  the  brood  of  nokri.'" 

8th.  Zephaniah  denounces  those  who  wear  clothes  in 
nokri  style.  57 

9th.  Obadiah  looks  upon  nokrim  as  mere  pillagers.  5* 

10th.  Lamentations  does  the  like.^^^ 

*8Deut.  14.21.  ‘9Exod.  22.30.  “Lev.  17.15.  “Exod.  12.43. 

“Lev.  22.25.  “Deut.  23.21.  “Ezek.  44.7,  9.  “Jud.  19.12. 

»»l3a.  2.6.  “Zeph.  1.8.  ‘»Obad.  1.11.  “Lara.  5.2. 


22 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


11th.  The  114th  Psalm  says  of  the  bene  nekar  that 
their  “mouth  speaketh  falsehood,  and  their  right  hand  is 
a  right  hand  of  lying. 

The  Book  of  Proverbs  looks  upon  them  as  degraded 
and  degenerate.  The  depth  of  infamy  is  reached  by  the 
nokriyah. 

The  worst  fate  that  can  befall  a  Hebrew  is  that  the 
nokri  or  zar  shall  enjoy  his  substance,  that  ‘‘zarim  be 
filled  with  thy  strength  and  thy  labors  be  in  the  nokri's 
house. 

And  a  Hebrew  has  sunk  low  indeed  when  he  has 
become  muzar  unto  his  brethren  and  nobri  unto  his  mother’s 
children  when  the  gerim  of  his  house  and  his  amahot 
look  upon  him  as  a  zar  and  a  nokri.^^ 

While  common  opinion  was  hostile  to  the  nokri^  and 
the  law,  in  a  measure,  reflected  it,  since  the  education  of 
a  whole  people  in  new  ideas  is  a  slow  process,  there  were 
loftier  spirits  whose  souls  were  unhampered  by  prejudice. 
These  had  that  wider  vision  which  looks  without  fear  into 
a  distant  future  nobler  and  freer  than  the  present.  They 
foresaw  a  time  when  the  hated  nokri  should  become  a 
brother.  In  the  prayer  of  Solomon  at  the  dedication  of 
the  Temple  he  speaks  of  “the  nokri  that  is  not  of  thy 
people  Israel,  when  he  shall  come  out  of  a  far  country 
for  Thy  name’s  sake  .  .  .  when  he  shall  come  and 

pray  toward  this  house”  and  his  supplication  is:  “Hear 
Thou  in  heaven.  Thy  dwelling-place,  and  do  according  to 
all  that  the  nokri  called  to  Thee  for ;  that  all  the  peoples  of 
the  earth  may  know  Thy  name  to  reverence  Thee  as  doth 
Thy  people  Israel.  .  . 

In  the  magnificent  vision  of  Isaiah,  he  sees  kol  ha- 
goyim  (all  the  foreign  nations)  “at  the  end  of  days”  flock 

wpsalm  144.8,  11.  eiProv.  2.16;  6.24;  7.5;  20.16;  27.13. 

“Prov.  5.10;  Eccles.  6.2.  “Psalm  69.9.  “Job  19.15. 

*®1  Kings  8.41;  2  Chron.  6.32. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


23 


tc  the  Temple  and  pledge  allegiance  to  the  God  of  Jacob 
and  “they  shall  beat  their  swords  into  plowshares,  and 
their  spears  into  pruning-hooks ;  nation  shall  not  lift  up 
sword  against  nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war  any 
more.”^^  And  Micah  foresees  the  same  happy  result  in 
the  end  of  daysf’’  meaning,  according  to  Margolis,^®  the 
Messianic  era. 

When  we  reflect  that  these  messages  were  delivered 
twenty-five  centuries  ago  and  view  conditions  as  they  are 
to-day,  the  long  postponement  of  the  happy  time  is  fully 
vindicated. 

The  broad  views  above  cited  concerning  the  nokri 
may  be  supplemented  by  an  incident  of  the  most  interesting 
character. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Israel  determined  not  to 
make  its  attack  on  Canaan  from  the  south,  but  to  estab¬ 
lish  its  base  of  operations  east  of  Jordan.  The  direct  route 
to  the  desired  point  lay  through  the  territory  of  Edom. 

At  this  point  Moses  exhibited  a  regard  for  international 
law  based  on  ethical  principles,  which  is  amazing  for  that 
early  time.  The  narrative  is  related  in  the  twentieth 
Chapter  of  Numbers: 

“Moses  sent  messengers  from  Kadesh  unto  the  King 
of  Edom.  Thus  saith  thy  brother  Israel.  .  .  .  We  are 
in  Kadesh,  a  city  in  the  uttermost  of  thy  border.  Let  us 
pass,  I  pray  thee,  through  thy  land ;  we  will  not  pass  through 
field  or  through  vineyard,  neither  will  we  drink  of  the 
water  of  the  wells;  we  will  go  along  the  king’s  highway, 
we  will  not  turn  aside  to  the  right  hand  nor  to  the  left, 
until  we  have  passed  thy  border.” 

And  Edom  said  unto  him: 

“Thou  shalt  not  pass  through  me,  lest  I  come  out 

•*Isa.  2.2-4.  «^Micah  4.1-4. 

••Margolis’  Commentary  on  Micah,  pp.  42,  43  (J.P.S.,  Philadelphia,  1908). 


24 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


with  the  sword  against  thee.”  And  the  children  of  Israel 
said  unto  him: 

”We  will  go  up  by  the  highway,  and  if  we  drink  of 
thy  water,  I  and  my  cattle,  then  will  I  give  the  price  thereof ; 
let  me  only  pass  through  on  my  feet;  there  is  no  hurt.” 

“And  he  said,  Thou  shalt  not  pass  through.  And  Edom 
came  out  against  him  with  much  people  and  with  a  strong 
hand.  Thus  Edom  refused  to  give  Israel  passage  through 
his  border;  wherefore  Israel  turned  away  from  him.”®^ 

The  object  to  be  attained  was  practicable  by  a  march 
through  the  territory  of  the  Amorites  whose  King  was 
Sihon. 

Moses  then  sent  to  Sihon,  a  message  substantially 
similar  to  that  which  had  been  sent  to  Edom,  omitting 
of  course  to  call  Israel  brother  to  the  Amorite  because 
they  viewed  each  other  as  strangers  whereas  the  Edomite 
was  looked  upon  as  descended  from  the  brother  of  Israel’s 
ancestor  Jacob. 

Sihon,  however,  not  only  refused  to  grant  the  request 
but  gathered  his  army  and  attacked  Israel  at  Jahaz. 

“And  Israel  smote  him  with  the  edge  of  the  sword 
and  possessed  his  land  from  the  Arnon  unto  the  Yabbok 
oven  unto  the  children  of  Ammon;  for  the  border  of  the 
■children  of  Ammon  was  strong.  And  Israel  took  all  these 
cities  and  Israel  dwelt  in  all  the  cities  of  the  Amorites,  in 
Heshbon,  and  in  all  the  towns  thereof.  For  Heshbon  was 
the  city  of  Sihon  the  King  of  the  Amorites,  who  had  fought 
against  the  former  King  of  Moab  and  taken  all  his  land 
out  of  his  hand  even  unto  the  Arnon.” 

“Thus  Israel  dwelt  in  the  land  of  the  Amorites.”^*^ 

The  aloofness  of  the  great  mass  of  Hebrews  from  the 
mokri^  is  in  striking  contrast  to  their  position  towards  the 
ger, 

69Num.  20.14-24.  ^oNum  21.22-31. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


25 


We  have  already  advanced  the  hypothesis  that  the 
bulk  of  the  native  population  remained  in  the  land  and 
became  feudatories  of  the  conquering  Hebrews,  subject 
likewise  to  the  mas  or  corvee,  which  is  the  liability  to  be 
called  on  to  labor  on  public  works  for  a  limited  period. 

That  the  ger  was  an  important  factor  in  the  labor- 
force  of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth  is  amply  attested  by 
the  records. 

We  have,  for  instance,  this  narrative: 

Moses  is  represented,  as  having,  near  the  close  of  his 
career,  addressed  all  Israel,  reciting  at  the  same  time  the 
several  classes  composing  the  nation, to  wit:  “All  the 
men  of  Israel,  your  little  ones,  your  wives,  and  thy  ger 
that  is  in  the  midst  of  thy  camp,  from  the  hewer  of  thy  wood 
unto  the  drawer  of  thy  water. 

If  the  ger  here  referred  to  had  been  merely  alien  out¬ 
siders  visiting  the  country  or  temporarily  sojourning  in  it, 
there  would  have  been  little  reason  to  include  them  as  an 
important  element  of  the  people  on  this  solemn  occasion. 
There  would  have  been  even  less  ground  for  using  the 
possessive  pronoun  and  calling  them  thy  ger.  This  posses¬ 
sive  expression  implies  not  only  close  relationship,  but  also 
superiority,  a  power  of  command,  which  would  be  inappro¬ 
priate  to  express  the  condition  of  friendly  visitors,  but 
would  aptly  characterize  the  relation  between  employers 
and  employees.  We  are  not  however  compelled  to  rely 
on  inference  alone.  The  phrase  added  defines  their  con¬ 
dition,  they  are  the  “hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water,” 
a  popular  expression  describing  any  kind  of  common  labor. 

There  are  other  instances  of  a  similar  use  of  the  word. 
The  Sabbath  commandments  in  Exodus  and  Deuteron- 
omy^^  direct  the  master  to  prohibit  work  on  the  Sabbath 
not  only  by  his  family  and  his  slaves  but  “by  thy  ger  that 

”Deut.  29.1  9,10.  ”Exod.  20.10;  23.12;  Deut.  5.14. 


26 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


is  within  thy  gates.”  Such  a  command  is,  of  necessity, 
addressed  to  an  employer  who  might  otherwise  exact 
Sabbath  service  from  an  alien  employee  who  was  not  a 
worshipper  of  the  God  of  Israel. 

A  similar  prohibition  is  contained  in  the  ordinance 
commanding  the  observance  of  the  tenth  day  of  the  seventh 
month  (Atonement  Day).73 

More  striking  still  is  the  language  attributed  to  Moses 
in  charging  the  judges:  “Hear  the  causes  between  your 
brethren  and  judge  righteously  between  a  man  and  his 
brother  and  (between  a  man)  and  his  ger."'^^  It  is  difficult 
to  imagine  causes  of  contention  with  mere  strangers,  whereas 
differences  between  employer  and  employee  have  always 
arisen.  And  here  again  it  is  necessary  to  note  the  possessive 
pronoun  (his  ger). 

The  unsophisticated  historical  evidence  seems  con¬ 
clusive  of  the  matter.  Solomon,  intent  on  increasing  the 
splendor  of  his  reign,  entertained  magnificent  building 
schemes.  He  built  not  only  the  Temple  but  constructed 
the  fortifications  of  Jerusalem,  the  royal  palace  and  other 
notable  structures.  He  also  built  Gezer,  Beth-Horon  the 
nether,  Baalath,  Tadmor  in  the  wilderness  and  other 
cities.  75  In  carrying  on  these  projects  he  was  doing  what 
his  father.  King  David,  had  dreamed  of  and  projected. 

Needless  to  say,  the  work  required  a  large  force  of 
laborers,  and  the  only  practicable  mode  of  obtaining  them 
was  by  the  enforcement  of  the  maSy  the  corvee  to  which 
the  conquered  Palestinian  natives  had  been  subjected. 
David  had  seen  this  clearly  and  had  begun  by  systematizing 
the  institution  putting  at  its  head  a  man  of  extraordinary 
ability,  Adoniram,  whose  office  is  described  as  being  “over 
the  maSy”’^^  what  in  modern  parlance  we  would  call  a 
“Minister  of  Labor”  in  the  King’s  Cabinet,  which  position 

«Lev.  16.29.  74Deut.  1.16.  «1  Kings  9.15-19;  2  Chron.  8.1-6. 

»»2  Sam.  20.24. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


27 


he  continued  to  hold  under  Solomon77  and  under  the  latter’s 
successor  RehoboamJ^  a  period  of  remarkable  length, 
seeing  that  the  duration  of  Solomon’s  reign  was  about 
forty  years’^’  to  which  must  be  added  the  time  he  held  office 
under  David  and  under  Rehoboam. 

David’s  first  step  was  to  take  a  census  of  all  the  gerim 
men  in  the  land  of  Israel.^®  There  were,  however,  cir¬ 
cumstances  which  hindered  him  from  realizing  his  pro¬ 
jects.  Under  Solomon  everything  was  ready.  Adoniram 
took  a  new  census  of  these  gerim  men,  and  their  number 
was  found  to  be  153,600,  from  which  figure  it  is  fair  to 
infer  that  the  whole  ger  population  of  Israel  (women  and 
children  included)  was  perhaps  three  quarters  of  a  million. 

We  are  not  left  in  doubt  as  to  who  these  gerim  were. 
The  account  is  explicit:  ‘‘All  the  people  that  were  left 
of  the  Amorites,  the  Hittites,  the  Perizzites,  the  Hivites 
and  the  Jebusites,  who  were  not  of  the  children  of  Israel; 
even  their  children  that  were  left  after  them  in  the  land.  . 

The  census  being  completed  the  next  step  was  to  levy 
the  mas.  The  architects  needed  10,000  men  to  work  stead¬ 
ily,  and  these  were  to  be  taken  from  among  the  gerim. 
As  has  already  been  said,  these  gerim  were  employed  by 
the  Israelites,  the  men  of  the  northern  section,  in  agricul¬ 
tural  and  other  labors,  though  their  largest  and  most 
important  industry  was  agriculture. 

The  mode  in  which  the  mas  was  levied,  was  somewhat 
complicated  and  that  for  good  and  sufficient  reasons.  The 
Israelite  farmers  needed  the  gerim  and  deprivation  of  their 
service  entailed  loss  and  hardship.  To  reduce  these  dis¬ 
advantages  as  much  as  possible,  Adoniram  devised  this 

scheme: 

The  150,000  gerim  men  were  divided  into  five  sections 

”1  Kings  4.6;  5.28.  Kings  12.18;  2  Chron.  10.18. 

’•Solomon’s  reign  is  given  as  forty  years  in  1  Kings  12.42. 

M2  Chron.  2.16  «1  Kings  9.20,  21;  2  Chron.  8.7,  8. 


28 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


of  30,000  each.  The  first  year  one  of  these  sections  was 
drafted;  another  section  was  drafted  for  the  second  year, 
and  so  on,  one  section  for  the  third,  another  for  the  fourth 
and  another  for  the  fifth  year.  It  followed  that  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  any  one  of  these  sections  were  not  subject  to  be 
called  for  a  second  term  of  service  until  the  fifth  year  after 
the  expiration  of  their  first  term. 

These  sections  of  30,000  men  were  thrice  the  number 
required  by  the  architects.  Each  section  was  therefore 
subdivided  into  three  sub-sections  of  10,000  each,  the  latter 
being  the  number  required.  It  followed  that  each  of  these 
sub-sections  was  held  to  the  work  for  only  four  months  in 
each  year.  To  deprive  the  Israelite  employer  of  a  con¬ 
siderable  number  of  his  workmen  for  four  successive  months 
in  the  year  would  have  been  a  serious  hardship.  The  matter 
was  therefore  so  arranged  that  each  sub-section  of  10,000 
men  should  do  its  work  not  by  continuously  working  for 
four  months,  but  by  working  one  month  out  of  every 
three  in  the  year  of  their  service,  so  that  each  individual 
worked  in  the  public  service  a  total  of  four  months  in  five 
years,  that  is  one-fifteenth  or  six  and  two-thirds  per  cent 
of  his  time. 

The  outstanding  feature  of  this  mas  levy  was  that  it 
did  not  include  the  southland,  the  territory  of  Judah  and 
Benjamin,  while  most  of  the  magnificent  structures  to  be 
built  were  to  be  located  in  the  latter.  Solomon  appointed 
as  Adoniram’s  chief  deputy  in  Israel,  a  northerner  of  the 
northerners,  Jeroboam  ben  Nebat,  an  Ephraimite.®^  He  is 
described  as  a  gihhor  hayil  (a  mighty  man  of  valor)  and  of 
untiring  industry,  and  he  was  given  charge  “over  all  the 
labor  of  beth-Joseph”  (the  northland).  Instead  of  faith¬ 
fully  performing  the  duties  of  his  office,  he  did  his  best  to 
rouse  opposition  to  the  enforcement  of  the  mas.  His 

*^1  Kings  11.26;  George  Adam  Smith’s  Historical  Geography  of  the  Holy  Land, 
p.  319,  note. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


29 


treachery  being  disclosed,  he  fled  to  Egypt  where  he  re¬ 
mained  till  Solomon’s  death. 

Though  the  discontent  of  Northern  Israel  was  not 
relieved,  Solomon’s  reign  was  so  imposing  that  no  out¬ 
break  resulted.  The  work  went  on  without  disturbance, 
and  the  results  were,  as  regards  the  reputation  of  the 
Kingdom,  of  the  most  flattering  character. 

At  Solomon’s  death,  however,  the  rebel — Jeroboam — 
returned  to  Palestine  and  resumed  his  activity.  Solomon’s 
son  and  successor,  Rehoboam,  was  of  a  type  far  inferior 
to  his  celebrated  father.  From  the  very  beginning  of  his 
career  he  blundered.  The  discontented  northerners  at 
once  approached  him  and  demanded  relief  from  the  mas.^^ 
Jeroboam  was  their  spokesman.  Rehoboam  haughtily 
refused,  whereupon  the  northerners  raised  their  old  war- 
cry  “To  your  tents,  O  Israel, and  openly  rebelled.  Reho¬ 
boam,  unable  to  grasp  the  situation,  sent  poor  old  Adoniram 
to  the  north  with  orders  to  enforce  the  mas  relentlessly. 
He  was  killed  in  the  attempt,  the  Northland  seceded,  Jero¬ 
boam  became  its  first  king,  Jerusalem  was  repudiated  as 
the  capital  and  Beth-el  was  set  up  in  its  place. 

Thus  the  kingdom  was  finally  divided  in  the  year  933 
B.C.,  for  a  grievance  which  the  Northerners  had  endured 
for  decades.  The  mas  which  took  from  the  employer  six 
and  two-thirds  per  cent  of  his  gers  working-time  was 
scarcely  sufficient  of  itself  to  warrant  the  drastic  step  of 
secession.  There  was  undoubtedly  a  feeling  that  the  South 
was  getting  an  unfair  advantage  of  the  North  not  only  in 
monopolizing  the  results  of  this  labor,  but  in  not  contribut¬ 
ing  its  proportionate  share  thereof.  Added  the  tactlessness 
of  Rehoboam  and  the  audacious  ambition  of  Jeroboam, 
and  there  were  ample  materials  to  produce  a  cataclysm. 

Ml  Kings  11.40.  Ml  Kings  12.3,  4.  “1  Kings  12.14,  16. 

s"!  Kings  12.29-33:  Amos  7.13. 


30 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


One  curious  feature  in  connection  with  this  subject  is 
that  many  scholars  understand  the  texts  to  mean  that 
the  Israelites  themselves  were  drafted  for  public  work  and 
that  this  was  the  cause  of  the  revolt.  For  this  opinion 
there  is  no  semblance  of  authority.  There  is  not  the  slight¬ 
est  hint  that  they  were  ever  made  subject  to  the  corvee, 
whereas  all  the  texts  concur  in  stating  that  the  gerim  were 
so  subject.  When  the  text  tells  us  that  Solomon  levied  a 
mas  on  kol-yisrael,  it  plainly  means  that  he  drafted  their 
employees  and  thus  imposed  a  tax  on  the  employers. 
We  may  assume  that  people  three  thousand  years  ago 
were  not  more  eager  to  pay  taxes  than  are  our  contempo¬ 
raries,  and  that,  then  as  now,  they  bandied  charges  that 
the  taxes  were  unfairly  levied,  that  they  were  excessive 
and  that  the  products  were  unevenly  distributed. 

This  aspect  of  the  case  many  commentators  and  critics 
have  overlooked  and  have  in  consequence  invented  the 
imposition  of  the  corvee  on  the  Israelites  themselves,  in 
the  belief  that  nothing  less  than  a  severe  personal  grievance 
could  have  produced  the  great  rebellion. 

In  the  next  lecture  we  will  further  consider  the  ger. 


*U  Kings  9.20-22;  2  Chron.  8.7-9. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


II 

In  the  previous  lecture  the  gerim  were  depicted  as  a 
great,  perhaps  the  great  labor  force  of  the  Hebrew  common¬ 
wealth.  Though  described  by  all  the  Bible  translators  as 
strangers,  the  difference  between  them  and  the  zarim  and 
the  nokrim,  who  are  also  called  strangers  was  dwelt  upon. 
In  addition  to  these  classes  there  were  two  other  classes 
of  so-called  strangers  mentioned,  namely  the  Toshab  and 
the  Sakir,  to  investigate  whom  is  our  next  problem. 

About  them  there  is  no  mystery.  They  are  mere  sub¬ 
divisions  of  the  ger. 

When  the  natives  were  reduced  to  feudatories  they 
had  to  face  abnormal  conditions.  The  majority  of  them 
were  farmers  but  an  important  minority  carried  on  other 
trades.  The  Hebrew  vocabulary  is  rich  in  the  names  of 
such  occupations.^ 

The  conquest  had  deprived  the  natives  of  their  land- 
holdings.  Most  of  them  had  families  to  support.  The 


iThe  following  list,  which  is  far  from  complete,  will  show  how  varied  were  the 
occupations  of  the  inhabitants: 

The  Omman  (Cant  7.2)  is  a  master-workman,  an  artist. 

(Hosea  7.6)  is  a  baker. 

(Isa.  19.9)  is  a  weaver. 

(2  Kings  22.6)  is  a  builder. 

(Psalm  104.3)  " 

(Ezek.  5.1)  is  a  barber. 

(Isa.  19.8)  is  a  fisherman. 


The  Ofeh 
The  Or  eg 
The  Boneh 
The  Mekareh 
The  Gallab 
The  Dayyag 
or 

The  Dawwag 
The  Hobel 
The  Mallah 
The  Hobesh 
The  Rofe 
The  liar  ash 


(Ezek.  47.10)  “ 

(Ezek.  27.9)  is  a  sailor. 

(Ezek.  27.29)  " 

(Is  .  3.7)  is  a  surgeon. 

(2  Kings  20.5)  is  a  physician. 

(1  Sam.  13.19)  is  a  metal-worker. 
(2  Sam.  5.11)  is  a  wood-worker. 

(2  Sam. 5. 11)  is  a  worker  in  stone. 


31 


32 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


obvious  resource  was  to  utilize  their  knowledge  by  working 
for  the  victors.  The  latter  were  not  in  the  best  condition. 
They  had  not  the  requisite  number  of  skilled  farmers  and 
artisans  to  carry  on  the  variegated  business  of  the  country^ 
They  needed  the  labor  of  the  dispossessed  natives.  The 
result  was  an  arrangement  whereby  the  bulk  of  the  native 
population  remained  where  they  were.  They  became  settled 
as  employees  on  the  land  of  which  they  had  been  the  owners. 
And  these  settled  gerim  were  called  toshabim  {settled^  a 
word  related  to  yashab,  to  sit,  just  as  in  English,  sit  and 
settled  are  related).  They  were  not  employed  for  a  season 
or  for  a  limited  period,  but  they  and  their  progeny  after 
them  were  to  be  on  the  land  indefinitely — a  settled  peasant 
population. 

That  a  minority  of  the  natives,  especially  the  artisans 
and  the  unmarried  men,  were  reluctant  to  enter  into  such 
a  service  was  only  natural.  They  preferred  to  work  for  a 
period  expressly  limited  and  to  be  paid  daily  wages.  These 

(Exod.  28.11)  is  a  gem-engraver. 

(Amos  6.5)  invents  musical  instruments. 

(Exod.  31.4)  devises  artistic  constructions. 

(Exod.  26.1)  develops  artistry  in  weaving. 

(2  Chron.  26.15)  invents  engines  of  war. 

(1  Sam.  8.13)  is  a  cook. 

(Jud.  16.21)  is  a  miller. 

(Isa.  41.25)  is  a  potter. 

(Isa.  23.8)  is  a  trader. 

(Isa.  24.2) 

(Gen.  23.16) 

(1  Kings  10.15)  “ 

(Isa.  7.3)  is  a  fuller,  a  washer. 

(2  Kings  24.14)  is  a  locksmith. 

(Jer.  24.1)  a  smith. 

(2  Sam.  1.24)  is  a  clothier. 

(1  Kings  4.3)  is  a  writer. 

(Jud.  5.26)  works  with  a  hammer;  the  laborer  in  general  (Prov.  16.26) 
(Jer.  16.16)  is  a  hunter. 

(Jud.  17.4;  Jer.  10.9,  14;  Isa.  40.19;  Neh.  3.8,  32)  is  a  smelter,  a  refiner, 
a  goldsmith. 

(Jer.  51.21)  drives  a  chariot, 
or 

The  Rakkah  (1  Kings  22.34)  ” 

The  Rokeah  (Exod.  30.25)  is  a  perfumer. 


The  Hosheb 


The  Tabbah 
The  Token 
The  Yoser 
The  Kena'ani 
The  Maker 
The  Soher 
The  Rokel 
The  Kobes 
The  Masger 

The  Malbish 
The  Sofer 
The  'Amel 
The  Sayyad 
The  Soref 

The  Rokeb 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


33 


constituted  the  sakir  class  of  the  ger.  The  term  of  a  sakirs 
work-contract  was  called  yeme  sakir^  or  shene  sakir.^  While 
ordinarily  yeme  sakir  would  mean  sakir  s  days,  yet  the 
word  yom  besides  its  usual  meaning  of  day,  also  signifies 
time,  instances  of  which  meaning  are  given  in  Brown- 
Driver’s  Hebrew  Lexicon. ^  It  is  in  this  sense  that  it  is  used 
here,  and  it  indicates  that  the  was  hired,  not  from 

day  to  day,  but  for  a  fixed  perioT  And  this  fixed  period 
was,  in  the  beginning,  more  than  one  year,  as  the  expression 
shene  sakir  (literally  sakir' s  years)  shows.  The  probability 
is  that  the  term  of  his  employment  was  for  three  years.  - 
So  may  fairly  be  understood  the  injunction  to  a  master 
releasing  his  Hebrew  slave  at  the  end  of  six  years  (which 
was  the  limit  of  a  Hebrew  slave’s  service)  on  the  expiration 
of  which  he  was  to  go  out  free.  These  are  the  words :  (A.V.) 

‘Tt  shall  not  seem  hard  unto  thee,  when  thou  sendest 
him  away  free  from  thee;  for  he  hath  been  worth  a  double 
hired  servant  {sakir)  to  thee  in  serving  thee  six  years. 

It  is  true  that  many  modern  scholars  haughtily  reject 
this  view,  but  it  is  that  of  Ibn  Ezra,  who  fortifies  it  by 
Isaiah’s  words  in  foretelling  the  doom  of  Moab,  and  it  may 
well  be  accepted: 

“Within  three  years,  as  the  years  of  a  sakir  {shene 
sakir)  and  the  glory  of  Moab  shall  wax  contemptible.”^ 

The  probability  is  that  in  the  course  of  time,  as  cir- 
cum.stances  changed,  the  three-year  term  of  the  sakir' s 

>Lev.  25.50;  Job  7.1;  14.6.  »Isa.  16.14.  <P.  399,  sect.  6.  ‘Deut.  15.18. 

Notwithstanding  my  repugnance  to  entering  upon  the  slippery  path  of  textual 
criticism,  I  venture  in  this  connection  to  make  the  suggestion  that  the  text  originally 
read,  not  mishneh  sekar  sakir,  but  mishneh  shene  sakir.  That  an  ancient  scribe,  who 
has  since  been  uniformly  followed,  might  easily  have  made  this  blunder,  plainly  appears 
when  we  reflect  that  he  had  three  words  to  copy,  that  he  kept  these  in  mind,  and  that 
the  middle  word  was  closely  related  to  the.  first.  While  writing  he  made  it  closely  related 
to  the  third  instead  of  the  first,  a  mistake  the  like  of  which  many  of  us  have  made  since 
his  day.  Had  he  acted  otherwise  than  mechanically,  he  could  not  have  escaped  the 
reflection  that  the  wage  of  the  sakir  was  paid  every  evening,  while  the  reward  of  the 
‘ebed  was  principally,  if  not  altogether,  in  kind,  and  could  bear  no  analogy  to  the  sakir' s 
daily  wage  payment. 


34 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


contract  was  reduced  to  one  year.  This  may  fairly  be 
inferred  from  the  expression  used  concerning  the  term  of  a 
Hebrew  who  has  sold  himself  as  a  slave  to  a  ger  we-toshab. 
Instead  of  being  doomed  to  perpetual  servitude  he  must  be 
viewed  as  a  sakir  shanah  be-shanah  (a  sakir  from  year  to 
year) .  7 

Our  thesis  that  the  ger  were  composed  of  the  two 
classes  toshab  and  sakir  seems  provable  from  the  records. 

They  are  grouped  together  in  several  instances  in  a 
way  that  shows  their  close  connection  in  status. 

A  striking  example  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  impor¬ 
tant  Pesah  statute/  which  commands  a  ceremony  sacro¬ 
sanct,  in  commemoration  of  the  Exodus  from  Egypt.  It 
is  therefore  of  special  concernment  to  Israelites  and  par¬ 
ticipation  in  it  by  non-Israelites  is  eschewed.  As  there 
are  many  of  the  latter  connected  with  Israel,  the  relations 
of  the  several  groups  are  carefully  defined.  The  groups 
spoken  of  are  the  following: 

a)  The  whole  congregation  of  Israeh 

b)  The  ben-nekar  (the  unmitigated  alien) 

c)  The  miknat  kesef  (purchased  nokri  slave) 

d)  The  toshab  and  sakir'^^ 

e)  The  ezrah  ha-arep^ 

f)  The  'arel  (uncircumcised) 

g)  The  ger'^^. 

Superficially  read,  there  would  appear  to  be  six  groups 
of  outsiders.  Careful  examination  shows  that  there  is  not 
so  great  a  number.  The  ultimate  test  is,  that  one  who 
has  not  been  initiated  into  the  covenant  of  Abraham  (the 
*arel)j  may  not  eat  of  the  Paschal  lamb.  This  condition 
of  inadmissibility  was,  of  course,  normal  in  the  case  of  the 
ben-nekar,  the  man  who  was  and  would  remain  a  complete 

^Lev.  25.53.  ®Exod.  ch.  12  and  the  Supplement  thereto  Num.  9.1-14. 

»Exod.  12.47.  loibid.  12.43.  nibid.  12.44.  i^bid.  12.45. 

“Ibid.  12.48,  49.  “Ibid.  12.48.  lUbid.  12.48. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


35 


outsider.  The  miknat  kesef  was  a  ben-nekar  by  origin, 
but  according  to  the  traditional  custom,  it  was  the  duty 
of  the  master  to  initiate  his  slave  whether  house-born  or 
purchased^^  and  hence  the  ordinance  admits  him  to  par¬ 
ticipate  after  such  initiation. 

The  toshab  and  sakir  are  here  named  together,  and 
their  participation  in  the  Paschal  ceremony  is  forbidden. 
Respecting  them  there  would  appear  to  be  no  alleviation. 
And  yet  such  a  state  of  affairs  seems  highly  improbable. 
The  purchased  nokri  slave,  may,  after  complying  with  the 
condition,  join  in  the  festival.  Respecting  the  house-born 
slave  not  a  word  is  said  because  his  initiation  into  the 
Covenant  is  assumed  as  a  matter  unquestionable. 

The  toshab  and  sakir  work  by  their  side  for  the  same 
master.  Keeping  in  mind  the  imitative  and  assimilative 
qualities  of  humankind,  it  is  incredible  that  they  would 
not  want  to  do  what  not  only  the  master  did,  but  what 
the  slave,  whom  they  looked  down  upon,  had  the  privilege 
of  doing.  It  is  equally  improbable  that  the  ordinance 
would  sternly  exclude  the  toshab  and  the  sakir  if  they  were 
willing  to  leave  the  'arel  class.  Nor  did  the  ordinance  do 
so.  When  it  permitted  the  ger,  after  the  admission  of  him¬ 
self  and  his  males  into  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  to  partake 
of  the  Paschal  lamb,  it  was  merely  substituting  the  term 
ger  for  its  species,  toshab  and  sakir.  Bertholet,  who  has 
studied  the  subject  more  closely  perhaps,  than  any  other 
commentator,  is  of  this  opinion.  These  are  his  words: 
“Vielmehr  ist  ger  der  Allgemeinbegriff,  unter  den  sich  toshab 
subsumiert.”^® 

If  these  views  are  correct  it  would  follow  that  the  only 
class  absolutely  inadmissible  to  participate  was  the  nokri, 
the  ben-nekar,  the  hostility  to  whom  was  dwelt  upon  in 

i«Gen.  17.13.  i^Exod.  12.44. 

i*Bertholet,  Die  Stellung  der  Israeliten  und  der  Juden  zu  den  Fremden,  p.  159. 


36 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


the  preceding  lecture.  Though  the  gerim^  whether  toshah 
or  sakir  couXd  join  in  the  festival,  they  were  perfectly  free 
to  refrain  from  so  doing.  While  their  gradual  assimilation 
was  likely  to  occur,  no  pressure  was  to  be  brought  to  hasten 
the  process.  The  words  are:  “If  the  ger  .  .  will  keep 

the  passover.  .  leaving  the  matter  to  their  option 

and  initiative. 

The  groups  mentioned  have  now  been  considered 
excepting  only  the  ezrah  ha-ares.  The  versions  present 
various  translations  but  with  vexatious  unanimity  under¬ 
stand  this  term  to  mean  invariably  the  Israelite  himself. 

To  this  rendering  there  are  serious  objections.  To 
consider  it  now  would  be  a  hindrance  to  the  elucidation 
of  the  main  questions  and  it  must  therefore  be  deferred 
till  later. 

This  much  may,  however,  be  said  at  this  point.  In 
our  view  the  ezrah  ha-ares  or  as  it  is  alternatively  written, 
the  ezrah  are  terms  that  in  the  majority  of  instances  mean 
Israel  but  in  the  rest  have  another  meaning,  the  phenome¬ 
non  being  due  to  changes  arising  in  the  course  of  Hebrew 
history. 

We  will  now  return  to  our  toshah  and  sakir.  They  are 
mentioned  together  in  the  regulations  concerning  the 
priesthood.  The  latter  are  allowed  the  kodashim  (holy 
things)  for  their  sustenance,  but  outsiders  are  excluded. 
Among  these  outsiders  are  the  priest’s  toshah  and  sakir. 
They  may  not  eat  of  it,  though  his  slaves  purchased  and 
home-born  are  allowed  to  eat  of  it.^°  The  difference  between 
these  two  kinds  of  laborers  is  that  the  slave,  as  was  ex¬ 
plained  in  the  previous  lecture,  has  virtually  become  a 
member  of  the  family,  and  as  such  joins  in  the  family  wor-  i 

i 

ship,  whereas  the  toshah  and  sakir  contemplated  by  the  I 
ordinance  are  freemen  who  are  not  to  be  persuaded  to  i 


i*Exod.  12.48. 


20Lev.  22.10.11. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


37 


become  proselytes.  And  even  if  they  left  the  ^arel  class 
they  would  still  be  excluded  from  the  kodashim,  because 
the  ordinary  Hebrew  layman  (here  called  zar)  is  equally 
barred. 

The  next  instance  relates  to  the  produce  of  the  seventh 
(the  sabbatical)  year  when  there  must  be  neither  sowing 
nor  reaping.  What  the  land  spontaneously  produces  may 
be  used  for  food 

by  thee  (the  owner) 
by  thy  ‘ebed  (slave) 
by  thy  amah  (female  slave) 
by  thy  sakir 
by  thy  toshab^^. 

Here  the  sakir  and  the  toshab  are  placed  in  the  same  cate¬ 
gory  with  the  slave  and  are  in  like  manner  spoken  of  pos¬ 
sessively^  indicating  that  there  is  the  relation  of  master 
and  servant.  There  is  no  mention  of  thy  ger  as  in  other 
analogous  instances,  for  the  obvious  reason  that  the  classes 
mentioned  are  the  two  species  of  the  genus  ger. 

In  the  preceding  lecture  the  same  use  of  the  possessive 
pronoun  in  connection  with  the  ger  was  shown  and  dwelt 
upon. 

And,  last  but  not  least,  the  position  of  the  sakir  and 
toshab  as  employees  is  emphatically  illustrated  in  the  case 
of  a  Hebrew  who  has  become  impoverished  and  has  sold 
himself  to  a  prosperous  man  of  his  own  nation.  Though 
the  greed  of  the  buyer  and  the  desperate  straits  of  the  seller 
may  have  co-operated  to  make  a  contract  whereby  the 
poor  wretch  was  to  become  an  'ebed  (slave),  the  law  steps 
in  and  annuls  it  as  contrary  to  the  public  policy  of  the 
state.  The  poor  man’s  status  is  to  be  that  of  ger  we-toshab 
or  alternatively  of  sakir  or  of  toshabd^  the  various  names 
being  practically  equivalent  to  ger. 

*‘Lev.  22.10.  “Ibid.  25.4-6.  “Ibid.  25.34,  40. 


38 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


In  this  connection  it  is  well  to  consider  the  case  of  the 
Hebrew  who  has  become  impoverished  and  has  sold  him¬ 
self  to  a  prosperous  ger  we-toshab  or  to  one  of  the  latter’s 
kin.  However  stringent  the  contract,  the  law  reads  into 
it  a  provision  that  the  Hebrew  may  at  any  time  be  re¬ 
deemed  on  fair  terms,  either  by  himself  if  he  become  able, 
or  otherwise,  by  any  of  his  kin.  In  no  event  can  he  be  held 
beyond  the  jubilee  year.  In  arranging  the  terms  of  redemp¬ 
tion  the  time  already  served  is  to  be  used  in  the  computation 
as  if  the  poor  man  had  been  serving  sakirs  time  (yeme 
sakir).  Indeed  he  is  to  be  considered  and  treated  as  a 
sakir  shanah  be-shanah  (a  sakir  from  year  to  year).^'* 

A  comparison  of  the  two  cases  invites  attention  to 
facts  that  are  noteworthy.  The  outstanding  feature  is 
that  the  ger  we-toshab  is  in  a  position  to  employ  a  Hebrew 
to  work  for  him.  The  desire  on  the  ger  we-toshab' s  part  to 
call  for  such  help  is  based  on  his  prosperity  and  on  a  form 
of  it  which  is  nowhere  expressly  mentioned  but  seems 
necessarily  implied.  He  is  a  peasant  living  with  his  family 
on  a  Hebrew’s  land,  deriving  his  and  their  sustenance  from 
it,  with  perquisites  perhaps  in  the  form  of  wages,  which 
are  unascertainable  from  the  records.  A  Hebrew  land- 
owner  alongside  of  him  is  too  impoverished  to  continue  on 
his  land  any  longer  and  must  seek  a  means  of  earning  a 
livelihood  for  himself  and  family.  He  makes  an  arrange¬ 
ment  with  the  ger  we-toshab  whereby  the  latter  will  employ 
him,  perhaps  leasing  to  such  employer  for  a  limited  term 
the  land  which  he  himself  can  no  longer  manage.  While 
the  ger  we-toshab  may  not  own  land  there  is  no  authority 
for  believing  that  he  might  not  lease  it  for  a  limited  term. 
If  he  does  so,  he  may  not  employ  the  unfortunate  owner 
as  a  peasant  (toshab)  but  must  hire  him  as  a  sakir,  a  laborer, 
whose  wage  must  be  paid  daily. 


24Lev.  25.47-54. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


39 


In  this  connection  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  remember 
that  the  sakir  is  also  capable  of  attaining  a  certain  prosper¬ 
ity.  Probably  such  an  achievement  was  rarer  in  the  case 
of  a  sakir  than  in  that  of  a  toshab,  but  it  was  practicable. 

The  only  recorded  instance  is  that  of  a  sakir  who  owns 

an  animal  and  hires  himself  out  to  work  with  it,  naturally 
for  a  wage  much  greater  than  he  would  earn  for  his  own 
work  without  such  aid.  The  text  has  given  endless  trouble 
to  the  translators.  The  King  James  version  renders  it 
thus: 

‘‘And  if  a  man  borrow  aught  of  his  neighbor  (rea'), 
and  it  be  hurt,  or  die,  the  owner  thereof  being  not  with 
it  (‘immo),  he  shall  surely  make  it  good.  But  if  the  owner 
thereof  be  with  it  {‘immo),  he  shall  not  make  it  good;  if 
(im)  it  be  an  hired  thing  (text:  sakir)  it  came  for  his  hire.”^^ 

The  English  Revision  makes  it: 

“And  if  a  man  borrow  aught  of  his  neighbor  and  it  be 
hurt  or  die,  the  owner  thereof  not  being  with  it,  he  shall 
surely  make  restitution.  If  the  owner  thereof  be  with 
it  he  shall  not  make  it  good;  if  it  be  a  hired  thing  {sakir) 
it  came  for  its  hire.” 

The  J.P.S.  version  is  like  the  English  Revision  except 
that  it  renders  the  last  clause  thus:  “if  it  be  a  hireling 
{sakir)  he  loseth  his  hire.” 

The  King  James  version  and  the  English  Revision 
make  of  the  sakir,  a  hired  thing.  The  J.P.S.  version  on 
the  other  hand  appears  to  make  the  sakir,  a  person  (as  he 
really  is),  but  what  the  meaning  of  its  whole  phrase  is 
passes  my  understanding. 

There  appears  to  have  been  a  general  obsession  that 
a  sakir  could  never  be  rich  enough  to  own  an  ox  or  a  cow, 
and  therefore  to  conceive  him  as  hiring  himself  out  to 
work  with  his  animal  did  not  occur  to  them. 


J‘Exod.  22.13.  14. 


40 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


Kautzsch  in  his  German  version  of  the  Scriptures  is 
unable  to  give  a  satisfactory  translation  and  therefore 
leaves  the  last  clause  untranslated,  giving  his  reasons  in 
a  note,  of  which  the  following  is  a  translation: 

“The  last  phrase  is  of  quite  uncertain  meaning.  It 
is  usually  translated  thus:  Tf  it  (the  animal)  was  hired, 
the  loss  is  on  the  hire’,  i.e.  the  loss  is  to  be  reckoned  and 
covered  by  the  hire.  But,  in  the  first  place,  the  word  sakir 
always  means  a  day-laborer,  and  in  any  event,  it  would  be 
monstrous  to  consider  the  value  of  the  animal  as  being 
covered  by  the  hire,  which,  after  all,  is  but  a  small  fraction 
of  its  value.  On  the  whole,  therefore,  it  would  seem  that 
this  additional  phrase  has  no  bearing  on  the  subject  of 
hiring  an  animal  and  refers  only  to  the  negligence  of  a 
hired  man  in  failing  to  care  for  the  loaned  animal.  In  that 
view,  the  phrase  would  mean:  Tf  it  be  a  hired  man  who 
is  responsible  for  the  loss,  it  falls  on  his  wages,  i.e.  he  must 
work  till  he  earns  enough  to  pay  for  the  loss.’ 

Kautzsch  was  on  the  right  track,  though  he  wandered 
from  the  path  and  failed  to  reach  the  goal. 

The  difficulty  is  caused  by  the  failure  to  grasp  the 
special  meaning  of  the  word  rea  and  the  particular  in¬ 
timation  conveyed  by  the  word  Hmmo  (beginning  with  an 
^ayin)  and  by  the  word  im  (beginning  with  an  alef). 

It  is  however  the  word  rea  which  is  most  important 
in  this  connection.  The  versions  agree  in  rendering  it 
“neighbor”  which  is  its  usual  signification.  Here,  how¬ 
ever,  it  has  another  and  a  special  meaning,  though  at 
bottom,  this  special  meaning  has  the  same  ethical  implica¬ 
tions  as  the  general  meaning.  This  question,  “who  is  my 
neighbor,”  is  the  text  of  a  fine  piece  of  Midrash  in  Luke.*^ 
We  cannot  however  ascertain  exact  legal  definitions  by 
hortatory  exposition,  however  beautiful. 

2«Kautszch,  Die  Heilige  Schrift  des  alien  Testaments,  Freiburg,  i.  B.  and  Leipzig’ 
1894.  Beilagen  p.  2.  27Luke  10.29-37. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


41 


It  will  be  remembered  that  the  great  body  of  native 
workmen  were  called  ger  (stranger).  As  the  new  lords  of 
the  land  developed  its  industries,  there  inevitably  arose 
considerable  classes  of  Hebrew  laborers,  men,  who,  either 
had  lost  the  land  originally  assigned  them  or  some  per¬ 
haps  who  had  never  received  any.^*  These  Hebrews  came 
by  degrees  to  practise  the  various  trades  at  which  the  ger 
worked.  With  agriculture  they  were  more  or  less  familiar 
and  doubtless  the  majority  of  these  workmen  chose  farm¬ 
ing.  Thus  they  worked  alongisde  of  the  ger.  The  national 
pride  forbade  the  calling  of  these  brethren  ger^  though  this 
word  had  practically  come  to  mean  “laborer.”  In  contrast 
to  the  ger  (stranger)  they  called  their  Hebrew  workman, 
rea  (neighbor,  friend).  It  is  to  be  noted  that  though  the 
Hebrews  balked  at  calling  their  laboring  tribesman  ger, 
they  did  in  time  call  such  of  them  as  worked  for  daily 
wage,  sakir,  though  the  latter  were  originally  one  section 
of  the  ger. 

The  following  ordinance  shows  this  use  of  the  word: 

“Thou  shalt  not  oppress  a  sakir  'ani  we-ehyon  (the 
versions  render:  a  hired  servant  that  is  poor  and  needy) 
whether  he  be  of  thy  brethren  or  of  thy  ger  that  are  in  thy 
land  within  thy  gates.  In  the  same  day  thou  shalt  give 
him  his  hire,  neither  shall  the  sun  go  down  upon  it;  for 
he  is  poor  {'ani)  and  setteth  his  heart  upon  it.  .  . 

28Num.  1.2,  3  tells  us  that  prior  to  the  invasion  of  Canaan,  a  census  was  taken  of 
all  the  males  “from  twenty  years  old  and  upward,  all  that  were  able  to  go  forth  to  war 
in  Israel.”  Upon  the  basis  of  the  registry  so  made  the  conquered  land  was  to  be  divided  • 
The  question  arises  whether  “and  upward”  was  intended  to  include  men  of  senile  age 
or  whether  there  was  a  maximum  age  for  military  service.  That  there  was  some  limit 
seems  intrinsically  probable,  and  this  probability  is  enhanced  by  the  narrative  which 
makes  Caleb,  in  his  eighty-fifth  year  declare  himself  as  still  fit  for  war  (Josh.  14.11). 
Had  he  been  on  the  registry,  such  a  remark  would  have  had  no  reason.  It  is  still 
further  strengthened  by  the  statement  of  Josephus  (Antiq.  Book  III,  ch.  12,  4)  that 
the  limit  was  fifty  years.  Though  he  is  not  always  to  be  relied  on,  he  is  in  this  instance 
probably  right,  especially  in  view  of  the  current  opinion  that  man’s  normal  span  of 
life  is  seventy  years  (Psalm  90.10).  If  this  hypothesis  be  correct  it  would  follow  that 
some  were  landless  from  the  very  beginning.  Add  to  this  the  inevitable  differences 
in  the  fertility  of  soil  and  in  the  ability  and  effijiency  of  the  owners,  and  causes  for 
distress  and  impoverishment  will  not  be  wanting. 

2»Deut.  24.14,  15. 


42 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


Returning  now  to  our  rea^  we  find  in  the  prophetic 
writings  satisfactory  evidence  of  its  use  to  mean  workman. 

Jeremiah  in  his  great  sermon  on  morality  delivered 
at  the  gate  of  the  Lord’s  house,  exhorts  his  hearers  as 
follows : 

“Thoroughly  amend  your  ways  and  your  doings; 
thoroughly  execute  justice  between  a  man  and  his  rea\ 
oppress  not  the  ger,  yatom  or  almanah."'^^ 

Note  the  parallelism  between  the  rea^  and  the  ger. 
More  explicit  still  is  his  cry  against  the  King  Jehoiakim: 

“Woe  unto  him  that  buildeth  his  house  by  unright¬ 
eousness, 

And  his  chambers  by  injustice. 

That  useth  his  read's  service  for  nothing 
And  giveth  him  not  his  hire  (po'alo).'"^^ 

And  comparing  the  King  unfavorably  with  his  father^ 
he  dwells  on  the  latter’s  justice  and  righteousness  in  that 
he  judged  the  cause  of  the  ‘ani  and  the  ebyon,  whereas 
the  son  is  a  covetous  oppressor.^"^ 

Again  in  Zedekiah’s  time  he  reproaches  all  the  powers 
of  the  state,  namely,  the  princes  of  Jerusalem,  the  sarisim 
and  the  priests  and  the  whole  ‘am  ha-aref^  with  dereliction 
in  not  securing  liberty  for  all  including  every  man’s  rea‘.^* 
Ezekiel  is  equally  bitter.  His  reproaches  directed 
to  the  princes  of  Israel  enumerate  among  their  other  de¬ 
linquencies  that  they  have  dealt  by  oppression  with  the 
ger,  the  yatom,  the  almanah^^  and  the  rea‘.^^ 

Proverbs  has  this  significant  passage:  He  that  de- 
spiseth  his  rea‘  sinneth,  but  he  that  is  gracious  to  the 
'aniyyim  happy  is  he^^ 

There  are  passages  in  the  Pentateuch  on  similar  lines: 
“A  ger  thou  shalt  not  wrong,  neither  shalt  thou  oppress 
him;  for  ye  were  gerim  in  the  land  of  Egypt.  Ye  shall 

sojer.  7.5,  6.  sUbid.  22.13.  ^Ubid.  22.15-17  ssjbid.  34.19. 

*abid.  34.17.  35Ezek.  22.7.  aUbid.  22.12.  ^vprov.  14.21. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


43 


not  afflict  any  almanah  or  yatom.  ...  If  thou  lend  money 
to  any  of  my  people,  even  to  the  ‘ani  Hmmak  (versions: 
the  poor  with  thee)  thou  shalt  not  be  to  him  as  a  creditor, 
neither  shall  ye  lay  upon  him  interest.  If  thou  at  all  take 
thy  rea^^s  garment  to  pledge,  thou  shalt  restore  it  to  him 
by  that  the  sun  goeth  down;  for  that  is  his  only  covering, 
it  is  his  garment  for  his  skin ;  wherein  shall  he  sleep?  . 

Note  here  the  classification:  ger,  almanah,  yatom, 
^ani  ^immak,  rea\  Again:  “Thou  shalt  not  oppress  thy 
rea\  nor  rob  him;  the  wages  of  a  sakir  shall  not  abide 
with  thee  all  night  until  the  morning. 

Here  rea^  and  sakir  are  in  juxtaposition,  if  indeed 
they  are  not  alternative  expressions  meaning  the  day- 
laborer. 

And  now  as  to  the  word  Hmmo. 

This  word  Hm,  among  its  numerous  meanings,  has 
one  which  expresses  the  idea  of  employment.  The  versions 
simply  translate  “with”  apparently  ignoring  the  special 
meaning  here  present. 

Instances  of  the  use  of  the  word  with  this  special 
meaning  are  not  wanting.  We  have  an  interesting  series 
of  passages  relating  to  an  important  event  in  the  life  of 
the  patriarch  Jacob. 

When  he  had  roused  his  brother  Esau’s  enmity,  his 
mother  feared  for  his  life  and  begged  him  to  go  to  Haran 
to  her  brother  Laban  “and  tarry  with  him  a  few  days,” 
until  Esau’s  fury  should  abate. Though  mother  and  son 
knew  that  it  was  not  a  trifling  journey  to  Paddan-aram, 
and  that  Esau’s  wrath  was  not  so  short-lived,  that  a  few 
days  or  a  short  time  would  see  matters  adjusted,  yet  need 
we  not  quarrel  with  the  mother’s  loving  belittlement  of 
the  difflculty.  She  did  not  intend  to  be  understood  literally 
and  Jacob  easily  divined  her  intention.  Indeed  the  same 


>8Exod.  22.20-26. 


si'Lev.  10.13. 


«Gen.  27.42-45. 


44 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


expression  occurs  in  the  narrative  of  Jacob’s  love  for  Rachel 
which  was  so  great  that  his  service  of  seven  years  for  her 
seemed  to  him  but  “a  few  days.”"*^ 

Rebecca  did  not  expect  her  son  to  pay  a  visit  to  her 
brother  in  order  to  enjoy  a  genteel  vacation.  She  knew 
that  when  there,  he  would  be  expected  to  earn  his  living 
by  working  for  it.  And  so  indeed  it  happened.  We  are 
told  what  he  did: 

“And  he  (Jacob)  abode  Hmmo  (with  him,  Laban)  for 
the  space  of  a  month. This  is  the  way  the  versions  put 
it,  the  real  meanng  being  that  he  served  him  (worked  for 
him)  for  that  time.  The  next  verse  proves  this.  Laban 
says  to  Jacob:  “Because  thou  art  my  nephew  {ah)  shouldst 
thou  therefore  serve  me  for  naught?  Tell  me,  what  shall 
thy  wages  be?’’"*^ 

And  when  Jacob  departed  and  there  was  bad  blood 
and  chiding  between  him  and  Laban,  the  former  remarked: 
“These  twenty  years  have  I  been  with  thee''  plainly  mean¬ 
ing  “These  twenty  years  have  I  worked  for  thee.”'*'* 

The  twenty-fifth  chapter  of  Leviticus,  which  treats 
of  the  sabbatical  year  and  the  year  of  jubilee  uses  this 
preposition  'im  freely. 

We  may  quote  in  this  connection  the  already  cited 
sixth  verse,  which  the  translators  have  found  troublesome. 

The  J.P.S.  version  renders:  “And  the  sabbath-produce 
of  the  land  shall  be  food  for  you:  for  thee,  and  for  thy 
servant  {'ebed),  and  for  thy  maid  {amah),  and  for  thy  hired 
servant  {sakir),  and  for  ‘the  settler  by  thy  side’  {tosha- 
beka),  that  ‘sojourn  with  thee’  {haggarim  ‘immak).’’ 

According  to  our  hypothesis  the  latter  part  of  the 
sentence  really  means:  “And  for  thy  sakir  and  for  thy 
toshab  that  are  in  thy  employ.’’ 

Another  instance  is  the  provision  regarding  the  fugitive 


«Gen.  29.20. 


«Ibid.  29.14. 


«Ibid.  29.15. 


«Ibid.  31.38. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


45 


slave. The  J.P.S.  version  is:  “Thou  shalt  not  deliver 
unto  his  master  a  bondman  {‘ebed)  that  is  escaped  from 
his  master  unto  thee.  He  shall  dwell  with  thee  {'inimeka) 
in  the  midst  of  thee,  in  the  place  which  he  shall  choose 
within  one  of  thy  gates,  where  it  liketh  him  best;  thou 
shalt  not  wrong  him  {to  tonennu)”  the  meaning  of  which  is: 

Thou  shalt  not  deliver  unto  his  master  a  bondman 
{‘ebed)  that  is  escaped  from  his  master’s  service  {me‘im 
adonaw)  unto  thee.  He  shall  settle  in  thy  employment 
{'immeka)  in  thy  midst,  in  the  place  which  he  shall  choose 
within  one  of  thy  gates  which  it  liketh  him  best;  thou  shalt 
not  wrong  him.” 

Here  we  see  that  the  slave  has  escaped  from  ''with  his 
master.”  That  relation  is  not  one  of  friendly  intimacy  or 
of  equality.  It  is  the  relation  of  servitude.  Nor  is  the 
new  relation  which  is  to  be  established  for  the  fugitive 
any  other  than  one  of  employment.  It  also  is  described 
by  the  same  preposition  'im. 

Moreover  there  is  the  significant  prohibition  lo  tonennu^ 
thou  shalt  not  maltreat  him,  a  verb  habitually  used  to 
describe  the  ill-treatment  of  the  workman,  the  ger,  which 
goes  far  to  indicate  that  the  employment  of  the  fugitive 
slave  is  contemplated. 

Other  instances  of  the  use  of  this  preposition  'im  in 
the  sense  of  being  in  another’s  employment  are  numerous. 

There  is  the  story  of  Micah  a  rich  Ephraimite  who 
had  a  little  temple  of  his  own  in  which  he  set  up  ephod  and 
teraphim  and  consecrated  one  of  his  sons  to  be  the  priest 
(Kohen), 

And  there  came  along  a  Levite,  seeking  employment. 
In  those  early  days,  there  must  have  been  a  class  of  trained 

«Deut.  23.16,  17. 

^•Instances  of  the  use  of  this  verb  in  connection  with  the  oppression  of  the  get 
or  other  employees  are  Exod.  22.20;  Lev.  19.33;  Jer.  22.3;  Ezek.  18.12;  22.7,  29. 

<7Lev.  25.50,  53;  Deut.  15.16;  Jud.  17.10;  1  Sam.  2.21. 


46 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


priests  called  Levites,  who  sought  employment  in  their 
capacity  in  every  one  of  the  tribes. 

Micah  said  to  him:  ‘‘Dwell  with  me  {^immadi)  .  .  . 
and  I  will  give  thee  ten  pieces  of  silver  by  the  year,  and 
a  suit  of  apparel  and  thy  victuals.”  (J.P.S.  version.) 
The  Levite  cheerfully  accepted,  whereupon  Micah  installed 
him  and  he  became  Micah’s  priest,  at  which  Micah  greatly 
rejoiced,  believing  that  the  Levite  had  much  more  influence 
with  the  Lord  than  his  own  son  would  have  had,  who  was 
after  all  but  an  amateur  and  not  a  professional  priest. 

The  last  example  we  shall  cite  of  this  use  of  the  word 
'im  is  perhaps  the  most  interesting.  It  is  part  of  the  history 
of  the  prophet  Samuel.''^  The  versions  agree  that  the 
lad  ‘‘grew  before  the  Lord,”  the  text  using  the  word  'im. 
The  true  meaning  must  be  that  the  acolyte  Samuel  was 
reared  in  the  service  of  the  Lord. 

When  we  remember  that  his  mother  devoted  him  to 
the  Lord’s  service  when  he  was  a  mere  babe^®  and  that 
the  child  ministered  unto  the  Lord  before  the  priest  Eli,^^ 
we  must  conclude  that  the  narrative  records  the  lad’s 
progress  in  the  service. 

This  use  in  Hebrew  of  the  word  'im  (with)  to  denote 
employment,  has  its  analogue  in  our  ordinary  English. 
We  have  all  heard  men  say,  sometimes  with  evident  self- 
sufflciency,  that  they  are  with  a  great  corporation,  or  a 
leading  mercantile  or  banking  establishment.  They  do 
not  mean  to  assert  that  they  are  chief  or  part  owners  of 
the  business.  All  they  wish  us  to  understand  is  that  they 
are  of  its  employees. 

The  third  word  that  contributes  to  the  difficulty  is 
im,  the  general  meaning  of  which  is  “if.”  It  may  however, 
on  occasion,  mean  “when.”^^ 

**Jud.  17.7-13.  <*1  Sam.  chs.  1-3.  “1  Sam.  1.28. 

Sam.  2.11,  18;  3.1.  ^^Brown-Driver,  Lexicon,  p.  50,  sub  voce  Im  b4. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


47 


Having  digressed  long  enough  from  the  main  subject 
in  order  to  elucidate  these  three  words,  we  may  now,  in 
the  light  of  the  suggestions  put  forward,  return  to  our 
text  and  seek  to  make  it  clearer  than  the  versions  have 
succeeded  in  doing. 

This  is  the  way  in  which  we  would  explain  it:^^  ‘‘And 
if  a  man  borrow  aught  of  his  (Hebrew  employee)  and 
it  be  hurt  or  die,  the  owner  thereof  not  being  employed 
with  it,  the  borrower  must  make  restitution.  If  the  owner 
thereof  be  employed  with  it,  the  borrower  need  not  make 
it  good.  When  the  man  is  sakir  (that  is,  hired  with  his 
animal  to  work  for  a  stipulated  daily  wage),  this  wage 
covers  everything,  the  labor  of  the  man,  the  labor  of  the 
animal  and  the  risk  of  the  animal’s  injury  or  death  while 
employed  in  the  work  under  its  owner.” 

.  The  legal  reason  for  the  rule  if  thus  established  is 
impeccable.  Under  the  circumstances,  when  the  owner 
of  the  animal  is  himself  using  it,  an  injury  suffered  by  it 
could  not  with  any  show  of  justice  be  charged  to  the  em¬ 
ployer  of  the  man  and  the  beast.  It  was  the  duty  of  the 
owner  to  care  for  his  beast.  It  was  under  his  control  and 
if  it  was  negligently  used,  the  fault  is  the  owner’s  and  not 
the  employer’s. 

The  Mishna  seems  to  understand  the  law  in  the  same 
way.  In  discussing  our  text  it  lays  down  these  principles: 
“If  a  man  borrow  a  cow  and,  at  the  same  time  or  before, 
hire  its  owner,  and  the  cow  is  hurt  or  dies,  the  borrower 
is  not  liable  to  pay  for  the  cow,  because  the  Bible  says 
(Exod.  22.14):  ‘If  the  owner  thereof  be  with  it,  he  need 
not  make  it  good.’  It  evidently  identifies  the  owner 
of  the  cow  with  the  sakir  who  has  been  hired  with  it  or 
before  it,  and  who  works  with  it. 

We  have,  however,  not  yet  finished  with  the  Toshab. 

“Exod.  22.13,  14.  “Mishnah,  Baba  Mesi'a,  8.1. 


48 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


He  also  appears  in  the  expression  ger  we-toshab  and  once 
as  ger  toshab. 

Considerable  learning  has  been  expended  on  the  differ¬ 
ence  between  these  two  forms.  As  they  obviously  have 
the  same  meaning,  the  variation  need  not  further  concern  us. 

When  Abraham,  after  the  death  of  his  wife  Sarah, 
felt  reluctant  to  bury  her  in  a  cemetery  over  which  he  would 
have  no  control,  he  applied  to  the  bene-Heth^  the  natives 
of  the  land,  and  began  by  saying:  I  am  ger  we-toshab  with 
you, 55  meaning  that  though  he  considered  himself  a  resi¬ 
dent,  he  recognized  the  law  that,  as  a  ger^  he  could  not  be 
the  absolute  owner  of  land.  He  therefore  appealed  to 
them  to  make  an  exception  under  the  sad  circumstances. 
Their  replies  were  courteous.  They  offered  him  the  use 
of  any  of  their  own  sepulchres,  which  would  require  no 
infringement  of  the  settled  law.  He,  however,  persisted 
in  his  request  for  a  sepulchre  which  would  be  his  absolute 
property  (ahuzzah),  and  they  graciously  complied  with 
his  request.  Needless  to  say,  the  lord  of  the  land  accepted 
full  payment  in  silver  for  the  field  of  Machpelah  and  the 
cave  that  is  therein. 

That  the  inability  of  the  ger  we-toshab  to  own  land  in 
perpetuity  was  an  accepted  doctrine  among  the  Hebrew^, 
appears  plainly  from  the  terms  of  the  jubilee  law,  which 
required  the  return  in  that  year,  of  all  purchased  land, 
to  its  original  owner, s?  the  reason  stated  being  that  the 
land  itself  is  God’s,  and  that  the  human  beings  who  claim 
its  ownership  are,  as  regards  Him,  merely  gerim  we-tosha- 
bim,^^  who,  of  course,  could  not  be  absolute  owners. 

When  the  Hebrews  are  forbidden  to  hold  fellow- 
Hebrews  as  slaves,  there  is  leave  granted  them  to  acquire 
^ebed  or  amah  from  the  surrounding  nations, 59  and  also 

t^Gen.  23.4.  seibid.  23.5-20.  ^’Lev.  25.10.  ^sibid.  25.23. 

MIbid.  25.44. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


49 


from  the  toshabim  in  their  employ.^®  Mention  has  already 
been  made  of  the  fact  that  these  toshabim  may  reach  a 
certain  degree  of  prosperity.  An  interesting  linguistic 
circumstance  in  that  regard  is  the  fact  that  such  a  prosper¬ 
ous  toshab  is  spoken  of  in  the  same  verse  as  ger  we-toshab 
and  as  ger  toshab 

It  is  time  now  to  return  to  our  simple  ger  uncom¬ 
plicated  with  toshab  or  sakir. 

The  presence  of  a  large  population  in  an  inferior  posi¬ 
tion  but  in  close  relations  with  Israel  would  naturally 
result  in  a  gradual  abandonment  by  them  of  many  prior 
practices  and  in  a  progressive  assimilation  with  the  prac¬ 
tices  of  their  employers.  The  absorption  of  the  slave 
population  in  the  religious  community  of  Israel  would  be 
an  element  tending  to  hasten  such  a  process. 

To  determine  the  course  it  actually  took  may  be 
difficult  but  not  quite  impossible.  The  records  give  us 
evidence  which  may  be  arrayed  under  the  following  heads: 

A.  The  gradual  admission  of  the  ger  to  participation 
in  the  national  religious  festivals. 

B.  Their  gradual  subjection  to  laws  imposed  prima¬ 
rily  on  Israelites  alone. 

C.  Their  presence  on  occasions  of  extraordinary 
solemnity  as  if  they  were  an  integral  portion  of  Israel. 

D.  The  careful  provisions  made  for  their  gaining 
and  maintaining  material  advancement. 

A.  Their  position  in  regard  to  the  festivals: 

In  the  Paschal  lamb  celebration,  the  ger  were  not 
expected  to  participate.  They  were  supposed,  in  general, 
to  maintain  their  own  religious  rites  and  peculiarities,  but 
provision  was  made  that  if  any  one  of  them  desired  to 

join  the  Israelites  in  this  solemn  ceremony,  he  was  at 
liberty  to  do  so,  if  he  complied  with  the  one  condition 

®®Ibid.  25.45.  The  words  are:  “mi-bene  ha-toshabim  ha-garim  immakem.” 

«ilbid.  25.47. 


50 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


imposed,  namely  that  he  and  the  male  members  of  his 
family  should  leave  the  class  of  ^arelim  and  become  initiated 
into  the  covenant  of  Abraham. 

This  was  evidently  at  an  early  period  when  it  was 
considered  unwise  to  permit  the  employer  to  persuade 
his  ger  to  adopt  Hebrew  customs,  but  the  latter  was  left 
free  to  act  according  to  his  own  desire,  without  interference 
of  any  kind. 

And  the  supplemental  ordinance  which  established 
for  certain  emergencies,  a  Passover  of  the  second  month 
for  those  who  could  not  lawfully  celebrate  it  in  the  first 
month,  has  the  same  provision  for  the  ger  who  wishes  to 
avail  himself  of  it,  reference  being  made  to  the  original 
Pesah  ordinance  as  the  norm.^^ 

The  festival  closely  related*  to  that  of  the  Paschal 
lamb  is  the  Massah  festival,  (the  festival  of  unleavened 
bread). The  ordinance  establishing  it  provides  that 
Israelites  must  eat  unleavened  bread  during  seven  days 
and  that  leaven  must  be  put  away  out  of  the  houses  and 
“whosoever  eateth  leavened  bread  from  the  first  day  until 
the  seventh  day,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  Israel. 

As  this  like  the  Paschal  lamb  celebration  commemorated 
Israel’s  Exodus  from  Egypt,  it  was  but  natural  that  the 
command  should  be  limited  to  Israel  alone.  Later  on, 
however,  in  the  same  chapter,  the  ordinance  is  repeated, 
but  this  time  three  words  are  added  ha-ger  u-he-ezrah  ha- 
ares,  which  the  versions  render  “whether  he  be  a  sojourner 
or  one  born  in  the  land.’’^^  Without  stopping  to  analyze 
the  meaning  of  this  addition,  it  may  be  remarked,  that 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  punishment  was  excision  from 
Israel,  its  denunciation  against  a  non-Israelite  like  the 
ger  would  seem  strange.  The  explanation  of  the  apparent 
inconsistency  is  to  be  found  in  the  additional  prohibition 

®2Exod.  12.49.  ®®Num.  9.14.  ®*Exod.  12.18;  Deut,  16.3. 

«5Exod.  12.15.  ®®Ibid.  12.19. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


51 


that  “seven  days  there  shall  be  no  leaven  found  in  your 
houses. “^7  This  could  not  be  enforced,  if  there  were  a 
group  of  inhabitants  who  were  at  liberty  to  eat  leaven. 
The  ger  were  not  directed  or  compelled  to  assume  a  religious 
duty  of  Israel,  but  they  were  prevented  from  interfering 
with  the  religious  practices  of  Israel.  The  Masj^ot  ordinance 
therefore  viewed  the  ger,  just  as  did  the  Passover  ordinance, 
that  is,  neither  considered  him  as  being  religiously  affiliated 
with  Israel. 

Other  texts  on  the  subject  are  to  the  same  effect: 
“There  shall  no  leavened  bread  be  seen  with  thee,  neither 
shall  there  be  leaven  seen  with  thee  in  all  thy  borders. 

Affirmation  of  this  view  of  the  gers  position  is  found 
in  the  fact  that  there  was  to  be  a  holy  convocation  and  a 
cessation  of  servile  labor  in  Israel  on  the  first  and  the  last 
days  of  the  seven, but  there  is  no  word  respecting  the 
ger  in  this  connection.  He  is  not  expected  to  assist  in  the 
celebration  of  the  festival.  His  sole  part  is  to  avoid  inter¬ 
ference  with  the  enforcement  of  the  leaven  prohibition. 

The  gers  religious  aloofness  is  maintained  in  regard 
to  the  Day  of  Atonement.  The  ordinance  is  directed  to 
Israel  alone  and  no  one  else  is  included.  It  is  to  be  a  fast 
day  and  a  rest  day;  and  whosoever  breaks  the  rule  against 
certain  forbidden  indulgence  “shall  be  cut  off  from  his 
people,”  and  whosoever  works  on  that  day  will  be  de¬ 
stroyed  “from  among  his  people.”^® 

Another  version  of  the  ordinance^^  presents  a  variation 
in  that  it  brings  in  the  ger.  After  directing  like  the  other, 
that  ye  shall  afflict  your  souls  and  shall  do  no  manner  of 
work,  it  like  the  Massah  ordinance  has  the  words:  ha- 
ezrah  we-ha-ger  ha-gar  betokekem  which  the  versions  simi¬ 
larly  render  ‘whether  it  be  one  of  your  own  country  or  a 

«7Exod.  12.19.  «»Ibid.  13.7;  Deut.  16.4. 

»»Exod.  12.16;  Lev.  23.7,  8;  Num.  28.18,  25;  Deut.  16.8. 

«Lev.  23.27-32;  Num.  29.7.  ^iibid.  16.29. 


52 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


stranger  that  sojourneth  among  you’  (King  James);  'the 
home-born  or  the  stranger  that  sojourneth  among  you’ 
(J.P.S.).  The  true  bearing  and  meaning  of  the  added 
clause  will  be  discussed  hereafter.  For  the  present,  it  is 
enough  to  note  that  the  ger  must  abstain  from  work  not 
because  of  any  religious  obligation  resting  on  him,  but 
rather  in  order  that  this  day  of  solemn  rest  might  not  be 
marred  by  anybody’s  working. 

The  New  Year’s  day  (Rosh  ha-Shanah)  ordinance  has 
no  reference  whatever  to  the  ger.  It  is  to  be  a  solemn  rest, 
a  memorial,  a  holy  convocation.  No  servile  work  may  be 
done  thereon, 72  but  it  is  for  Israel  alone  and  the  ger  is  not 
called  upon  to  do,  or  to  refrain  from  doing,  anything. 

Even  the  ordinance  establishing  the  weekly  Sabbath^^ 
with  all  its  anxious  care  that  the  ger  shall  not  work  on 
that  day,  gives  no  inkling  of  an  approach  to  a  religious 
fellowship  with  Israel.  It  is  a  day  of  rest  and  work  therein 
is  forbidden,  but  the  grounds  of  the  prohibition  are  ad¬ 
dressed  to  Israel  alone.  They  are  based  on  Israel’s  relation 
to  God  and  have  no  hint  concerning  those  who  worship 
other  gods.  These  grounds  are:  the  Lord’s  resting  on 
the  seventh  day  after  the  six  days  of  creation^^  and  His 
leading  Israel  out  of  Egyptian  bondage, 

The  ger  is  exempted  from  labor  just  as  are  the  beasts 
used  in  agricultural  work:  “that  thine  ox  and  thine  ass 
may  have  rest,  and  thy  ben-amah  and  the  ger  may  be 
refreshed. The  ultimate  aim  of  such  a  policy  was  to 
enforce  Sabbath  rest  on  Israelites  themselves,  which  would 
have  been  impossible  had  their  heathen  workmen  been 
allowed  to  cultivate  their  fields  and  perform  other  labors. 
That  such  enforcement  was  no  easy  matter,  we  learn  from 
the  earnest  protests  of  the  prophets: 

“If  thou  turn  away  thy  foot  because  of  the  Sabbath, 

^^Lev.  23,24,  25;  Num.  29.1.  ^^Exod.  20.10;  Deut.  5.14. 

’<Exod.  20.11.  76Deut.  5.15.  ’SExod.  23.12. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


53 


From  pursuing  thy  business  on  My  holy  day; 

And  call  the  Sabbath  a  delight, 

And  the  holy  of  the  Lord  honorable, 

And  shalt  honor  it,  not  doing  thy  wonted  ways. 

Nor  pursuing  thy  business,  nor  speaking  thereof; 

Then  shalt  thou  delight  thyself  in  the  Lord.’'^? 

Thus  far  Isaiah;  Jeremiah  is  equally  emphatic. 

Indeed,  the  country  people  who  were  pious,  construed 
the  Sabbath  ordinances  in  a  comfortable  way.  They 
evidently  believed  that  their  animals  though  not  to  be 
used  for  agricultural  work  on  the  Sabbath,  might  well 
carry  them  on  a  journey.  When  the  Shunnamite’s  beloved 
son  died,  and  she  wished  to  consult  Elisha  in  order  that 
the  child  might  be  revived,  she  called  to  her  husband,  who 
was  not  informed  of  the  calamity:  “Send  me,  I  pray  thee, 
one  of  the  servants  and  one  of  the  asses,  that  I  may  run 
to  the  man  of  God  and  come  back.”  And  he  answered: 
“Wherefore  wilt  thou  go  to  him  to-day?  it  is  neither  New 
Moon  nor  SabhathN'^^  Had  it  been  such,  he  would  have 
deemed  her  request  quite  proper.  Needless  to  say,  she 
did  as  she  wished. 

The  command  to  observe  the  Feast  of  Weeks  (Shabu- 
*ot)  is: 

“Seven  weeks  shalt  thou  number  unto  thee;  from  the 
time  the  sickle  is  first  put  to  the  standing  corn  shalt  thou 
begin  to  number  seven  weeks.  And  thou  shalt  keep  the 
feast  of  weeks  unto  the  Lord  thy  God,  after  the  measure 
of  the  free-will  offering  of  thy  hand,  which  thou  shalt  give, 
according  as  the  Lord  thy  God  blesseth  thee.  And  thou 
shalt  rejoice  before  the  Lord  thy  God,  thou  and  thy  son 
and  thy  daughter  and  thy  man-servant  {‘ebed)  and  thy 
maid-servant  {amah)  and  the  Levite  that  is  within  thy 
gates,  and  the  ger  and  the  yatom  and  the  almanah  that 

”l3a.  58.13,  14.  ”Jer.  17.21-27.  ”2  Kings  4.23. 


54 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


are  in  the  midst  of  thee,  in  the  place  which  the  Lord  thy 
God  shall  choose  to  cause  His  name  to  dwell  there.”®® 

There  is  also  the  provision:  “There  shall  be  a  holy 
convocation  unto  you;  ye  shall  do  no  manner  of  servile 
work.”®* 

This  injunction  to  refrain  from  labor  does  not  mention 
the  ger.  When,  however,  the  ger  is  directed  “to  rejoice 
before  the  Lord”  in  the  religious  capital  of  the  nation,  it 
is  clear  that  it  becomes  the  employer’s  duty  to  travel  from 
his  dwelling-place  to  Jerusalem  and  to  bring  with  him  to 
this  rejoicing  before  the  Lord,  not  only  his  own  family, 
but  the  Levite,  the  ger^  the  yatom  and  the  almanah  that 
dwell  with  him. 

This  classification  of  the  Levite  with  a  working  peasant, 
which  seems  strange  at  first,  attests  the  fact,  that  at  an 
early  time,  Levites  wandered  about  the  country  and 
obtained  employment  as  paid  priests  to  private  persons, 
as  was  the  case  with  Micah  referred  to  in  the  previous 
lecture.®^ 

All  of  an  Israelite’s  employees  are  to  participate  in 
the  ceremonies  at  Jerusalem,  and  we  have  here  an  advance 
in  the  ger's  religious  position.  He  is  no  longer  a  mere 
instrument  to  assist  in  enforcing  certain  religious  duties 
on  his  employer,  but  has  acquired  a  distinct  status  of  his 
own.  From  a  merely  negative  assistant,  he  has  become  a 
principal. 

This  advance  is  maintained  in  the  Sukkot  ordinance.®® 
The  classes  commanded  to  rejoice  at  Shahu'ot  are  likewise 
to  do  so  in  this  festival.  There  is  also  to  be  a  holy  con¬ 
vocation  on  the  first  day  and  a  solemn  assembly  on  the 
eighth.®'*  “Ye  shall  do  no  manner  of  servile  work,  and 
ye  shall  keep  a  feast  unto  the  Lord  seven  days.”®® 

That  this  advance  was  but  a  step  forward  in  the 

“Deut.  16.9-11.  «Lev.  23.21.  «2Jud.  17.5-15.  “Deut.  16.14. 

MNum  29.35.  «nbid.  29.12,  35. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


55 


process  of  the  ger's  religious  assimilation  appears  from 
another  version  of  the  ordinance  which  after  providing 
as  did  those  already  cited  adds  the  following: 

“Ye  shall  take  you  on  the  first  day  the  fruit  of  goodly 
trees,  branches  of  palm-trees  and  boughs  of  thick  trees, 
and  willows  of  the  brook,  and  ye  shall  rejoice  before  the 
Lord  your  God,  seven  days.  .  .  Ye  shall  dwell  in  booths 
seven  days;  every  ezrah  in  Israel  shall  dwell  in  booths; 
that  your  generations  may  know  that  I  made  the  children 
of  Israel  dwell  in  booths,  when  I  brought  them  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt.  . 

These  special  commemorative  ceremonies  do  not  in¬ 
clude  the  ger.  Another  class  however,  the  ezrah  in  Israel 
must,  like  the  Israelites  themselves,  dwell  in  booths;  the 
ger  may  not  do  so.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  the  versions  under¬ 
stand  the  ezrah  to  mean  the  Israelite  himself,  and  the 
commentators  have  been  much  troubled  about  him.  The 
consideration  of  his  real  position  must  be  deferred  with 
the  caution,  however,  that  we  regard  him  as  being  by  origin 
a  non-Israelite,  though  rapidly  approaching  complete 
assimilation. 

The  conclusion  is  that  as  regards  national  religious 
festivals  the  ger  had  advanced  towards  assimilation  but 
had  not  gone  more  than  halfway  in  the  process. 

B.  Besides  the  ger's  part  in  festivals,  his  obligation  to 
obey  certain  laws  binding  Israelites  primarily,  was  another 
forward  step  in  his  assimilation.  There  are  several  in¬ 
stances  of  this  kind. 

It  was  the  duty  of  the  Israelite  to  present  his  offering 
at  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting  {ohel  mo'ed)^  failure  to 
do  which  was  punishable  by  the  offender’s  being  “cut  off 
from  among  his  people.’’^^ 

This  duty  was  extended  to  the  ger  under  like  penalty 

8«Lev.  23.40,  42.  43.  17.3,  4,  3,  9. 


56 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


of  being  “cut  off  from  his  people”  meaning  Israel.** 

So  likewise  was  the  eating  of  blood  by  Israelite  or 
by  ger  similarly  penalized.*^  The  summing  up  was:  “No 
person  (nefesh)  among  you  shall  eat  blood,  neither  shall 
any  ger  among  you  eat  blood. 

The  bene-Israel  were  forbidden  to  give  any  of  their  chil¬ 
dren  to  make  them  pass  through  the  fire  to  Molech.^^  As 
this  was  an  odious  pagan  custom  the  penalty  of  being  cut 
off  from  among  their  people  was  none  too  severe. 

This  prohibition  was  extended  to  the  ger^^  under  like 
penalty.  Some  of  them  had  probably  practised  this  cruel 
rite.  Including  them  in  the  prohibition  was  a  measure 
designed  to  wean  them  from  odious  features  of  their  pre¬ 
vious  religion  and  thus  constituted  a  sort  of  negative 
proselytism.  And  this  policy  was  insisted  on  and  empha¬ 
sized  by  the  additional  provision:  “Whosoever  he  be  of 
the  children  of  Israel,  or  of  the  ger  that  live  in  Israel,  that 
giveth  of  his  seed  to  Molech  must  be  put  to  death;  the 
‘aw  ha-ares  shall  stone  him.”94 

The  penalty  first  denounced,  namely,  being  “cut  off 
from  among  their  people”  has  been  construed  by  many 
as  a  punishment  not  to  be  inflicted  by  man  but  by  Divine 
action.  Such  a  penalty  would  scarcely  deter  those  of  the 
ger  who  worshipped  Molech  and  looked  upon  Israel’s  God 
as  an  intruder  upon  their  god’s  territory,  from  continuing 
their  cruel  rites.  The  penalty  of  death  to  be  executed  by 
human  hands  was  likely  to  be  a  more  powerful  motive 
for  abstention. 

That  the  practice  was  not  rare  even  among  Israelites 
is  shown  by  the  hint  conveyed  in  the  text,  that  the  tribunal 
(the  ‘aw  ha-ares)  would  be  likely  to  acquit  the  offender, 
just  as  in  our  modern  experience,  jurors  who  are  opposed 

*8Ibid.  17.9.  89ibid.  17.10.  90Lev.  17.12.  sUbid.  18.21. 

»Tbid.  18.27.  »3ibid.  18.26.  »Ubid.  20.2. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


57 


to  capital  punishment  refuse  to  join  in  verdicts  of  murder 
of  the  first  degree  punishable  by  death. 

Blaspheming  the  Name  (shem)  was  a  crime  almost 
too  horrible  to  contemplate.  The  presumption  apparently 
was  that  God  Himself  would  visit  condign  punishment 
on  the  Israelite  guilty  of  such  offence.  The  code,  it  is 
true,  has  an  express  prohibition  of  it  to  the  Israelite  but 
it  provides  no  punishment  therefor.^^ 

In  the  course  of  time  the  question  had  to  be  met. 

On  a  certain  occasion  the  son  of  an  Israelite  mother 
and  an  Egyptian  father  blasphemed  {wa-yikkob)  the 
Name. Divine  vengenace  did  not  pursue  him  and  the 
natural  inference  was  that  his  exemption  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  he  was  not  an  Israelite.  He  had  however  com¬ 
mitted  a  fearful  offence  for  the  punishment  of  which  there 
was  no  law. 

The  case  was  therefore  referred  to  Moses  who  con¬ 
sulted  the  Oracle.  Whereupon  the  narrative  proceeds: 

“And  the  Lord  spoke  unto  Moses,  saying: 

“Bring  forth  him  that  hath  cursed  (ha-mekallel)  with¬ 
out  the  camp;  and  let  all  that  heard  him  lay  their  hands 
upon  his  head,  and  let  all  the  Congregation  {kol  ha-edah) 
stone  him.^^  And  thou  shalt  speak  unto  the  children  of 
Israel,  saying,  whosoever  curseth  (yekallel)  his  God  shall 
bear  his  sin  {we-nasa  hefo).  And  he  that  blasphemeth 
{nokeh)  the  Name  of  the  Lord  must  be  put  to  death;  kol 
ha-edah  shall  stone  him;  as  well  the  ger  as  the  ezrah  when 
he  blasphemeth  the  Name,  must  be  put  to  death.” 

We  have  here  a  specific  case  for  which  the  authorities 
could  find  no  established  law.  Consequently,  the  supreme 
judicial  authority  was  invoked  with  the  result  that  the 
offender  was  sentenced  to  death.  This  tribunal  went  a 

»^Lev.  20.4,  5.  **Exod.  22.27.  Elohim  lo  tekallel.  »^Lev.  24.10-16. 

»*0n  the  meaning  and  function  of  ha-Edah  see  my  Am  ha-Aretz,  Philadelphia, 1910. 


58 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


Step  further,  and  on  the  basis  of  this  decision  as  a  pre¬ 
cedent,  laid  down  a  general  law  applicable  to  future  cases 
just  as  precedents  in  English  and  American  law  become 
in  effect  statutes  for  the  future. 

If,  as  is  not  impossible,  the  Egyptian  father  in  this 
case  belonged  to  the  ^ereh  rah,  it  would  indicate  that  not¬ 
withstanding  his  close  association  with  Israel,  and  although 
he  had  married  an  Israelite  woman,  he  was  still  looked 
upon  as  in  some  degree,  an  outsider.  The  decision  of  the 
tribunal  that  the  ger  as  well  as  the  ezrah  must  suffer  death 
for  the  crime  would  indicate  a  marked  advance  in  the 
ezrah's  status,  because  in  this  instance,  the  word  doubtless 
comprehends  all  Israel. 

Whereas,  earlier,  an  Israelite  blasphemer  of  the  shem 
was  not  subject  to  human  punishment,  because  it  was 
believed  that  Heaven  itself  would  punish  him,  this  case 
established  the  rule  that  he  was  to  suffer  death  on  the 
finding  of  the  proper  Court. 

Notwithstanding  this  development,  the  old  popular 
conception  persisted.  When  Job’s  wife,  exasperated  by 
his  tame  submission  to  misfortune,  hysterically  urged  him 
‘to  blaspheme  God  and  die’^®  she  naively  uttered  the  com¬ 
mon  belief  that  Divine  vengeance  would  promptly  follow 
the  offence. 

I  had  hoped  to  treat  in  this  lecture  of  all  the  instances 
showing  the  gradual  subjection  of  the  ger  to  laws  imposed 
primarily  on  Israel,  but  the  time  is  too  short  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  and  in  order  not  to  weary  you,  we  must  postpone 
the  rest  for  the  next  lecture. 


»9Job  2.9. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


III 

We  paused  at  the  end  of  the  last  lecture  at  the  con¬ 
sideration  of  one  of  the  series  of  laws  laid  down  for  Israel, 
but  which  were  gradually,  in  whole  or  in  part,  applied  to 
the  ger. 

It  remains  to  treat  of  the  rest  of  that  series.  Before 
doing  so  however  we  cannot  ignore  the  fact  that  we  will 
over  and  over  again  meet  with  the  ezrah,  who,  we  have 
already  hinted,  was  not  of  Hebrew  origin. 

At  a  very  early  stage  of  Hebrew  history,  we  find  the 
law  that  the  alien  ger,  if  he  complies  with  a  certain  con¬ 
dition  “shall  be  as  the  ezrah  ha-ares.''^ 

It  is  necessary  to  know  what  the  status  of  this  ezrah 
ha-ares  was,  if  we  would  measure  the  gers  progress  in  the 
Commonwealth.  The  versions  generally  agree  that  he 
was  the  Israelite  himself.  In  the  Pesah  ordinance  just 
cited,  they  render  ger  by  stranger  and  ezrah  ha-ares,  by 
“one  that  is  born  in  the  land,”  evidently  meaning  Palestine. 
As  the  ordinance  is  stated  to  have  been  handed  down  in 
Egypt,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  they  could  have  adopted 
such  an  expression,  since,  up  to  that  time,  not  an  Israelite 
of  them  all  had  been  born  in  Palestine.  The  difficulty  is 
not  new.  It  has  been  encountered  before  and  our  en¬ 
deavors  must  be  directed  to  obtain  as  satisfactory  a  solu¬ 
tion  as  possible.  There  are  two  forms  of  the  term:  ezrah 
ha-ares  and  ezrah.  Ezrah  ha-ares  occurs  but  three  times, 
while  ezrah  is  found  thirteen  times.  Of  these  thirteen 


^Exod.  12.48. 


59 


60 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


instances,  there  are  four,  which  are  followed  by  added 
words,  that  may  be  termed  explanatory.  Once  we  have 
ezrah  mi-kem  (the  ezrah  among  you),  twice  we  have  ezrah 
bi-bene  Yisrael  (the  ezrah  among  the  children  of  Israel) 
and  the  fourth  time  we  have  ezrah  be- Yisrael  (the  ezrah 
in  Israel). 

The  versions  (A.V.  and  J.P.S.)  agree  in  rendering 
ezrah  ha-ares  by  born  in  the  land.  In  their  translations  of 
the  four  instances  in  which  ezrah  is  followed  by  a  qualifica¬ 
tion  they  agree  in  the  rendering  home-born. 

For  the  nine  instances  in  which  the  ezrah  stands  by 
itself,  the  King  James  version  has  seven  variant  renderings: 
homeborn,  once;  one  of  your  own  country,  three  times; 
one  of  your  own  nation,  once;  born  in  the  land,  once;  born 
of  the  country,  once;  born  among  the  children  of  Israel, 
once;  born  among  them,  once.  The  English  and  American 
Revisions  and  the  J.P.S.  version  agree  in  uniformly  render¬ 
ing  the  word  by  home-born  in  all  these  nine  instances. 

The  great  probability  is  that  ezrah  ha-ares  is  the  original 
form  and  that  ezrah  is  merely  a  convenient  abbreviation. 

It  is  therefore  specially  important  to  fathom  the  origin 
of  this  ezrah  ha-ares. 

One  noticeable  feature  is  that  the  three  instances  in 
which  it  occurs  are  all  connected  with  the  celebration  of 
the  Exodus — the  Pesah-massah  festival. 

The  historical  setting  of  the  narrative  is  that  this 
festival  was  ordained  on  the  day  that  Israel  was  to  start 
on  its  journeying  from  the  land  of  Egypt, ^  and  that  Israel 
did  not  go  alone  but  was  attended  by  a  considerable  group 
of  non-Israelites,  a  group  which  must  have  been  com¬ 
posed  of  Egyptians,  whose  discontent  with  conditions  in 
their  native  land,  impelled  them  to  seek  a  way  out,  and 
who  therefore  resolved  to  become  proselytes  and  to  stake 


2Exod.  12.39,  51. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL  61 

their  fortunes  on  the  future  achievements  of  Israel.  This 
accession  to  their  numbers  was  probably  looked  upon  as 
an  advantage  by  the  leaders  of  Israel.  By  the  mass  of 
the  people  it  must  have  been  viewed  coldly  if  not  with 
positive  aversion.  Otherwise  the  fact  would  be  inexplicable, 
that  this  reinforcement  is  mentioned  in  the  texts  by  two 
names,  expressive  of  contempt:  'ereh  ra¥  and  asajsuj,^ 
both  of  which  might  fairly  be  rendered  “the  rabble.” 
That  so  important  an  adjunct  should  have  no  other  designa¬ 
tion  than  these  nicknames  is  barely  conceivable.  When 
it  is  remembered  that,  according  to  the  narrative,  Israel, 
though  bound  for  foreign  parts,  had  not  yet  left  Egyptian 
territory,  what  more  likely  than  the  thought  of  calling 
these  non-Hebrew  Egyptians,  natives  of  the  land  (Egypt) 
(ezrah  ha-ares)}  The  only  land  they  had  yet  touched  was 
Egypt,  in  which  they  considered  themselves  outsiders, 
strangers,  {gerim)^  and  there  could  be  no  plainer  contra¬ 
distinction  than  between  foreigners  and  natives  {gerim  and 
ezrah  ha-ares).  Moreover  that  so  considerable  a  body  of 
men  should  after  the  Exodus  be  spoken  of  but  once  and 
then  in  contemptuous  terms  is,  to  say  the  least,  strange. 
What  became  of  them? 

The  one  occasion  on  which  they  are  referred  to,  is 
full  of  interest.  At  an  early  stage  of  their  journey,  the 
Israelites  came  to  think  its  hardships  unendurable,  and 
practically  revolted  against  the  Lord  and  against  Moses. 
There  is  fair  ground  for  believing  that  the  brother  and  the 
sister  of  Moses,  Aaron  and  Miriam,  instigated  the  rebellion, 
being  jealous  of  the  predominance  of  their  eminent  brother.^ 
However  that  may  be,  the  movement  was  pretty  general 
among  the  people. 

When  it  collapsed,  the  crowd  realized  that  it  had 
blundered,  and  with  the  usual  unfairness  of  crowds,  sought 

sExod.  12.38.  <Num.  11.4. 

6Exod.  22.20;  23.9;  Lev.  19.34;  Deut.  10.19;  23.8. 


*Num.  12.1-5. 


62 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


a  scape-goat  to  cast  the  blame  upon.  The  Egyptian  group, 
being  a  minority,  were,  of  course,  fastened  upon,  and  the 
asafsuf  were  charged  with  having  incited  and  misled  the 
people.  7  As  has  been  said  asafsuf  was  only  a  nickname. 
The  versions  treat  it  as  equivalent  to  'ereb  rab,  on  the 
theory  that  they  were  the  original  'ereb  rab  or  their  progeny. 
Rashi  makes  the  same  identification  and  so  is  the  general 
opinion.  The  important  implication  of  the  narrative  is 
that  the  asafsuf  were  of  sufficient  numbers  and  importance 
to  sway  the  multitude  in  a  movement  of  transcendent 
significance.  And  yet  we  never  hear  of  them  again. 

Just  as  they  unaccountably  disappear,  so  do  the  ezrah 
ha-ares  unaccountably  appear.  We  are  not  told  whither 
the  former  went,  nor  whence  the  latter  came.  That  they 
must  have  been  a  group  of  recognized  importance  is  plain 
from  the  fact  that  the  ger  are  under  certain  conditions 
to  attain  a  position  equal  to  that  of  the  ezrah  ha-ares. 

The  common  notion  that  they  are  the  Israelites  them¬ 
selves  must  have  originated  from  the  circumstance  that 
in  fifteen  of  the  sixteen  passages  in  which  they  are  men¬ 
tioned,  they  are  placed  in  collocation  with  the  ger  and  that 
hence  it  was  concluded  that  they  were  in  contradistinction 
to  the  ger]  and  if  this  were  so,  the  inference  was  easy  that 
the  ezrah  was  Israel. 

To  this  theory,  plausible  as  it  seems,  there  are  objec¬ 
tions  weighty,  if  not  insurmountable. 

There  is  the  sixteenth  instance,  in  which  the  ezrah  is 
in  no  relation  whatever  with  the  ger  because  the  latter  is 
not  even  mentioned. 

In  the  Sukkot  ordinance  of  Leviticus^  there  is  a  com¬ 
mand  addressed  to  Israel  in  these  words:  “Ye  shall  dwell 
in  booths  seven  days,”  and,  the  verse  goes  on,  “all  the 
ezrah  in  Israel  shall  dwell  in  booths,”  and  the  next  verse 


^Num.  11.4. 


8Lev.  23.42. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL  63 

explains  the  purpose:  “that  your  generations  may  know 
that  I  made  the  children  of  Israel  to  dwell  in  booths  when 
I  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.  .  .  Here 

the  collocation  is  with  Israel  alone,  and  in  order  to  identify 
the  two,  it  must  be  assumed  that  the  second  half  of  the 
verse  is  a  useless  repetition  of  the  first,  and  even  if  this 
were  granted,  we  should  still  have  to  learn  why  in  the 
second  half,  the  whole  body  of  Israel  should  be  spoken  of 
as  being  “in  Israel,”  an  expression  which  clearly  implies 
a  distinction  of  some  kind  between  Israel  and  ezrah. 

Doubtless  this  Sukkot  ordinance  originated  in  the 
very  beginning  of  the  nation.  Hosea  in  the  eighth  century 
B.C.  alludes  to  the  custom  of  dwelling  in  Sukkot  as  having 
subsisted  in  hoar  antiquity:  “I  will  again  make  thee  to 
dwell  in  tents,  as  in  the  days  of  the  By  mo^ed 

he  means  the  festival  of  Sukkot.^^  In  the  Deuteronomic 
version  of  the  Sukkot  ordinance  there  is  not  a  word  about 
dwelling  in  booths.  The  custom  was  so  rooted  in  the 
habits  of  the  people,  that  no  mention  of  it  was  necessary. 
In  reciting  the  participants  in  the  rejoicing  before  the  Lord 
on  that  festival,  there  is  nothing  said  of  the  ezrah  who  had 
doubtless  been  so  completely  assimilated  that  he  is  in¬ 
cluded  in  the  “thou”  addressed  to  the  people  of  Israel. 
“Thy  God”  is  his.  They  had  become  one.^^ 

The  implied  distinction  between  Israel  and  ezrah  in 
the  Sukkot  ordinance  does  not  stand  alone.  There  are 
three  other  passages  which  carry  a  similar  implication. 
One  of  them  speaks  of  the  ezrah  mikkem  (the  ezrah  among 
yoii),^^  while  the  other  two  tell  us  of  the  ezrah  hi-hene 
Yisrael  (the  ezrah  among  the  children  of  Israel). 

We  cannot,  in  the  face  of  such  evidence,  escape  the 
conclusion  that  the  ezrah  was  originally  a  numerous  body 

Ubid.  23.43.  wHosea  12.10. 

i^Brown-Driver,  Lexicon,  p.  417,  sub  voce  Mo‘ed  lb;  Dent.  31.10. 

i2Deiit.  16.13-17.  i^Lev.  19.34.  I'Nuin.  15.29;  Ezek.  47.22. 


64 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


which  finally  entered  into  the  composition  of  Israel,  and 
that  to  render  the  word  by  Israel  or  its  equivalent,  in 
every  text  in  which  it  occurs,  will  create  error  and  con^ 
fusion.  There  was  a  time  when  the  ezrah  became  fully 
assimilated,  and  at  this  point  the  difficulty  presents  itself. 
While  the  ezrah  before  such  complete  assimilation  was  not 
identical  with  Israel,  there  was  a  great  change  after  that 
event,  and  then  the  ezrah  was  sometimes  included  in  the 
term  Israel,  and  at  other  times  the  whole  of  Israel  was 
designated  by  the  term  ezrah. 

As  the  two  kinds  of  ezrah  are  externally  similar,  it 
is  not  easy  to  determine  which  ezrah  is  in  any  particular 
case  meant.  The  main  factor  in  the  decision  must  be  the 
context — an  appreciation  of  the  circumstances  and  a  com¬ 
mon-sense  conclusion  therefrom. 

The  result  of  such  an  examination  presents  some 
curious  features.  Of  the  four  cases  in  which  the  ezrah  is 
accompanied  by  a  qualifying  phrase,  there  is  one  in  which 
that  phrase  is  probably  due  to  a  scribe’s  error. 

The  latter  half  of  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  Numbers 
provides  for  the  atonement  of  sins  committed  in  error 
(shegagah),  and  declares  that,  the  proper  ceremonies  being 
performed,  “all  the  congregation  of  the  children  of  Israel 
shall  be  forgiven,  and  the  ger  that  liveth  among  them;, 
for,  in  respect  of  all  the  people  {kol  ha-'am)  it  was  done  in 
error, 

The  plain  meaning  of  this  is  that  the  people  of  Israel 
(the  'Am)  are  composed  of  two  elements,  the  hene  Israel 
and  the  ger.  Of  the  division  of  the  hene  Israel  into  com¬ 
ponent  parts  there  is  not  a  hint.  And  yet  in  the  same 
connection,  a  few  verses  further  on,  it  is  provided  that  the 
priest  shall  make  atonement  for  “the  ezrah  among  the 
children  of  Israel,  and  the  ger  that  liveth  among  them:  ye 


J^Num.  15.26. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IX  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


65 


shall  have  one  law  for  him  that  doeth  aught  in  error. 

And  continuing  the  theme,  atonement  is  denied  to 
him  that  sinneth  with  a  high  hand,  whether  he  be  ezrah 
or 

There  can  be  no  question  that  the  ezrah  all  through 
this  half  chapter  is  identical  with  Israel,  and  the  conclusion 
follows  that  the  added  words  ‘‘among  the  children  of 
Israel”  in  the  29th  verse  are  out  of  place  and  should  be 
elided. 

The  three  passages  which  use  the  expression  ezrah 
ha-ares  may  fairly  be  counted  as  not  referring  to  Israel. 
There  is  a  special  insistence  that  the  Pesah  shall  be  cele¬ 
brated  “by  all  the  congregation  of  Israel”^®  and  the  institu¬ 
tion  is  of  so  early  a  date  and  the  expression  ezrah  ha-ares 
is  at  that  stage  so  inept  to  describe  Israel,  that  doubt  on 
the  subject  may  be  dismissed. 

There  is  however  one  circumstance  which  must  be 
noted.  The  whole  chapter  mentions  the  ezrah  ha-ares 
twice  and  while  still  dwelling  on  the  same  subject,  once 
introduces  simple  ezrah This  can  only  mean  the  ezrah 
ha-ares  and  cannot  therefore  be  interpreted  to  mean  Israel. 

This  leaves  nine  passages  in  which  ezrah  may  fairly 
be  said  to  stand  for  Israel.  An  examination  of  the  context 
confirms  this  view  of  its  meaning. 

These  are  the  passages: 

Lev.  16.29,  relating  to  the  Day  of  Atonement. 

17.15,  relating  to  the  prohibition  against  eating 
nehelah  (that  which  dieth  of  itself). 

18.26,  relating  to  the  observance  of  certain 
moral  duties. 

24.26,  relating  to  the  punishment  of  blasphemy. 

24.22,  establishing  uniformity  of  law  for  ger 

and  ezrah. 

i6Num.  15.29.  lUbicl.  15.30.  isExod.  12.47.  »Ibid.  12.49. 


66 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


Num.  15.13,  relating  to  meal  offerings. 

15.29-30,  relating  to  sins  committed  in  error 
(shegagah) . 

Josh.  8.33,  describing  Joshua’s  audience. 

The  result  so  far  seems  to  be  that  the  earliest  mention 
is  that  in  the  Sukkot  ordinance,  in  which  the  ger  is  not  yet 
thought  of,  and  in  which  the  ezrah  is  viewed  as  distinct 
from  the  body  of  Israel.  Ye  (addressing  Israel)  are  com¬ 
manded  to  dwell  in  booths,  to  which  there  is  the  significant 
addition  that  “all  the  ezrah  in  Israel  shall  dwell  in  booths.” 
This  points  to  a  time  when  the  ezrah  had  reached  the  stage 
of  believing  himself  to  be  an  essential  part  of  all  Israel, 
but  had  not  succeeded  in  convincing  the  bulk  of  Israel  of 
that  fact.  The  ezrah,  at  this  mo  ed  period  might  logically 
urge  that  he  had  accompanied  Israel  on  its  travels  and 
had  to  dwell  in  booths  like  the  rest.  Why  then  should  he 
be  excluded  from  the  celebration  of  that  experience?  At 
all  events  any  effort  at  such  exclusion  was  ineffective,  made 
so  by  the  specific  ordinance  not  only  allowing  but  com¬ 
manding  him  to  dwell  in  booths  at  the  Mo  ed. 

When  we  meet  him  next  he  is  far  advanced  on  the  road 
towards  assimilation  but  has  not  finally  reached  the  goal. 
There  is  no  longer  a  question  about  his  right  to  celebrate 
the  Pesah.  That  is  assumed^®  and  though  there  are  a  few 
later  instances  in  which  the  distinction  between  him  and 
the  Israelite  is  recognized,  yet  this  soon  ceases.  The  word 
ezrah  is  not  even  mentioned  by  any  of  the  prophets  from 
Amos  down  save  only  by  Ezekiel  in  one  text  and  his  use 
of  it  is  merely  literary  and  oratorical.  It  refers  to  no  one 
in  being  but  is  a  vision  of  a  finer  future  based  on  past 
history.^^ 

The  change  in  the  meaning  of  the  word  was  in  con¬ 
formity  to  the  general  law  that  mutations  in  the  life  of 


a)Exod.  12.48, 


2iEzek.  47.22. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


67 


the  body  are  reflected  in  the  career  of  the  words  designat¬ 
ing  it. 

The  mode  here  adopted  is  not  new.  The  investigators 
of  ancient  times  encountered  the  same  difficulties  and  one 
of  them,  at  least,  treated  them  in  a  manner  somewhat 
analogous. 

About  eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  the  Syriac  Targum 
(called  the  Peshitta)  understood  ezrah  to  mean  Israel  in 
eight  of  the  sixteen  passages.  It  can  scarcely  be  a  mere 
co-incidence  that  seven  of  these  belong  to  the  list  of  nine 
Israels  given  by  us;  the  eighth  (Num.  15.29)  counted  by 
us  is  excluded  by  the  Peshitta.  It  is  however  not  rendered 
by  any  other  word,  but  is  passed  over  evidently  on  the 
theory  that  its  presence  is  due  to  an  error  in  the  text,  while 
our  ninth  (Josh.  8.33)  may  well  give  rise  to  two  opinions, 
though  on  the  whole  we  prefer  the  rendering  Israel. 

The  Peshitta’s  eighth  Israel  is  Lev.  19.34.  This  is 
one  of  the  four  passages  from  which  we  infer  that  the  ezrah 
were  originally  a  separate,  non-Israelite  group.  The 
Peshitta  shies  at  such  an  inference  but  nevertheless  is 
unable  to  find  Israel  in  the  other  three  and  therefore  prac¬ 
tically  elides  the  word  from  them.  In  this  instance,  how¬ 
ever,  the  terrifying  qualification  in  Israel,  or  among  the 
children  of  Israel  is  lacking.  Instead  of  an  objectionable 
noun  there  is  only  a  pronoun,  mi-kem  {among  you)  and  it 
is  encouraged  to  render  the  ezrah  among  you  as  Israel. 
Needless  to  say  in  such  reasoning  we  cannot  concur.  If 
the  Peshitta  were  right  its  translation  would  read,  “the 
Ezrah  (Israel)  among  you  (Israel).  . 

The  other  eight  passages  which  the  Peshitta  did  not 
render  by  Israel  it  treats  in  three  ways.  In  four  it  rendered 
by  the  equivalent  of  yosheh  ha-ares  (dweller  in  the  land) ,  in  one 
by  'Amora,  and  in  the  remaining  three  it  ignored  the  word 
and  translated  the  sentence  as  if  the  word  were  not  there. 


68 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


While  we  may  not  agree  with  the  Peshitta’s  procedure, 
its  outstanding  feature  is  the  recognition  of  the  fact  that 
in  half  the  instances  of  its  use,  the  word  ezrah  does  not 
mean  Israel  and  it  is  therefore  in  advance  of  most  moderns 
who  seem  to  have  sensed  no  difficulty  in  uniformly  under¬ 
standing  it  to  refer  to  Israel. 

Let  us,  however,  examine  in  detail,  the  Peshitta’s 
treatment  of  these  eight  non-Israelite  passages. 

It  renders  yosheb  ha-ares  four  times.  Probably  the 
rendering  was  intended  to  parallel  the  Hebrew  ezrah  ha- 
ares.  The  latter  expression  occurs  only  thrice  in  the 
texts  and  of  these  three  it  translates  one  by  'Amor a.  It 
renders  simple  ezrah  by  yosheh  ha-ares  in  two  cases,  one 
in  Exodus  12.49  which  we  have  above  concluded  stands 
for  ezrah  ha-ares  and  the  other  in  Joshua  8.33  where,  as 
we  have  above  stated,  a  difference  of  opinion  may  well 
exist. 

What  the  Peshitta  exactly  means  by  yosheh  ha-ares 
is  a  matter  that  deserves  careful  examination.  I  have 
roughly  conceived  it  to  mean  the  conquered  Canaanites, 
whom  we  in  this  investigation,  have  settled  upon  as  the 
ger  of  the  texts.  If  this  supposition  is  justified,  it  would 
follow  that  the  Peshitta’s  ger  is  not  an  important  compact 
body  like  ours,  but  is  composed  of  alien  individuals  who, 
from  time  to  time,  leave  their  former  surroundings  and 
become  converts  to  Israel’s  religion. 

There  is,  however,  a  clue  to  the  Peshitta’s  meaning. 
In  Number  9.14  it  renders  ezrah  ha-ares  not  by  yosheh 
ha-ares  but  by  'Amora.  The  definition  of  'Amora  is  given 
as  follows: 

"Workman.  In  Syria  the  workman  is  called  Amora.’’^^ 
As  the  Peshitta  uses  'Amor a  as  the  equivalent  of  yosheh 
ha-ares,  it  seems  fair  to  infer  that  it  views  the  conquered 

^^Neuhebrdisches  und  Chalddisches  Wdrterbuch  by  Prof.  Dr.  Jacob  Levy,  vol.  3, 
p.  665. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IX  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


69 


Canaanites  as  a  body  of  laborers,  just  as  we  have  done, 
but  calls  them  ezrah  instead  of  ger.  And  this  ezrah  it  seems 
to  look  upon  as  a  body  completely  assimilated  to  Israel 
at  the  earliest  period  of  the  nation’s  history.  In  short  it 
knows  no  real  distinction  between  “the  congregation  of 
Israel”  and  the  ezrah  ha-ares  of  the  Passover  ordinance. 
The  ger  of  that  ordinance  is  for  it,  a  casual  stranger  who 
has  imbibed  the  notion  that  he  would  like  to  become  a 
convert  to  Israel’s  religion. 

The  three  passages  in  which  the  Peshitta  refused  to, 
translate  the  word  ezrah  must  have  given  the  Targumist 
infinite  trouble.  He  knew  his  plain  duty  to  be  to  transfer 
the  original  text  to  its  Syriac  equivalent.  In  the  Passover 
ordinance  he  had  gone  so  far  as  to  recognize  the  ezrah' s 
incorporation  in  the  body  of  Israel  and  in  these  three 
passages  he  was  met  by  expressions  which  differentiated 
between  ezrah  and  Israel.  The  notion  that  circumstances 
and  therefore  laws  might  have  changed,  in  short  that  the 
Hebrew  nation  like  others  had  been  subject  to  the  law  of 
development,  was  to  him  not  only  inadmissible  but  im¬ 
possible.  For  him  the  Canaanites — the  ezrah —  when 
conquered,  immediately  became  attached  to  Israel’s  law 
and  religion,  and  were  indistinguishable  from  the  main 
body. 

Instead  of  solving  the  difficulty  he  evaded  it,  and, 
curiously  enough,  in  doing  so  he  practically  adopted  the 
favorite  modern  method  of  dealing  with  obstacles  in  the 
text  of  the  Bible — namely,  textual  criticism.  He  may 
not  have  been  fully  conscious  of  the  audacity  of  his  pro¬ 
cedure,  but  he  none  the  less  corrected  the  text  by  prac¬ 
tically  striking  out  the  disagreeable  words  that  bothered 
him. 

Notwithstanding  the  impossibility  of  agreeing  to  all 
of  his  views,  it  has  been  a  source  of  gratification  to  find 


70 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


this  early  scholar  reach  conclusions  with  which,  in  the 
main,  I  agree. 

In  modern  times  too  there  have  been  dissents  from 
the  current  notion  that  ezrah  always  means  Israel. 

Professor  Reggio,  of  the  Rabbinical  College  of  Padua, 
Italy,  makes  the  following  remarks  on  the  subject: 

I  have  explained  to  you  the  meaning  of  ger  toshab 
and  ger  sedek.  I  now  come  to  ezrah.  This  term  is  applied 
to  all  those  who  live  in  a  country  in  which  they  have  been 
born  and  in  which  their  forefathers  have  been  settled,  no 
matter  to  what  people  or  religion  they  belong.  In  this 
sense  it  is  the  opposite  to  ger.  A  clear  proof  of  this  explana¬ 
tion  is  the  fact  that  the  term  is  used  for  trees  and  plants 
which  still  stand  on  the  ground  on  which  they  have  grown 
(see  Psalm  37.  35).  Similarly  Kimhi  in  his  Dictionary 
says  that  the  ezrah  is  the  old  inhabitant  of  a  city.  Accord¬ 
ingly  I  believe  that  the  Canaanites  who  remained  in  Pales¬ 
tine  after  the  conquest  of  the  land  were  called  ezrahim. 
Wessely’s  statement  (on  Leviticus  16.  29)  that  ezrah  only 
refers  to  Israelites,  as  many  rabbinical  statements  also 
seem  to  imply,  sounds  very  strange  to  me,  since  many 
verses  do  not  bear  this  interpretation  (see  e.g.  Numbers 
9.14).  After  the  Israelites  came  to  Canaan  the  people 
were  compelled  to  accept  the  seven  Noahidic  command¬ 
ments  and  then  were  considered  on  the  same  level  with 
ger  toshab,  the  only  difference  being  that  they  had  remained 
in  the  country.  If  they  were  fully  converted  they  would 
be  on  a  plane  with  the  ger  sedek.^^ 

Needless  to  say  I  do  not  concur  with  much  that  Reggio 
says  in  this  note,  but  consider  it  important  to  cite  him 
because,  great  scholar  as  he  was,  he  could  not  accept  the 
general  rendering  of  our  word  ezrah. 

For  all  of  the  facts  concerning  the  Peshitta,  I  am 

^Iggerot  Yashar  (Vienna,  1834-6),  vol  1,  pages  52-53,  Letter  8. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


71 


indebted  to  that  great  authority  on  the  Syriac  Targum, 
the  Reverend  Doctor  Chayim  Heller,  who,  learning  of 
the  work  in  which  I  was  engaged,  generously  sent  me  a 
memorandum  on  the  subject  of  which  I  have  made  free 
use.  Needless  to  say  that  the  Reverend  Doctor  is  not 
responsible  for  the  opinions  and  conclusions  derived  by 
me  from  the  facts. 

We  are  now  ready  to  resume  the  main  line  of  our  dis¬ 
course,  and  to  examine  the  remaining  instances  of  laws 
primarily  intended  for  Hebrews  and  subsequently  imposed 
upon  the  ger. 

Immediately  following  the  blasphemy  statute  with 
the  consideration  of  which  we  ended  the  last  lecture  there 
is  laid  down  a  little  code  as  follows: 

He  that  smiteth  any  man  mortally  shall  be  put  to 
death. 

He  that  smiteth  a  beast  mortally,  shall  make  it  good, 
life  for  life. 

If  a  man  maim  his  fellow  {'amito);  as  he  hath  done, 
so  shall  it  be  done  to  him:  breach  for  breach,  eye  for  eye, 
tooth  for  tooth;  as  he  hath  maimed  a  man,  so  shall  it  be 
rendered  unto  him. 

He  that  killeth  a  beast  shall  make  it  good. 

He  that  killeth  a  man  must  be  put  to  death. 

Ye  shall  have  one  manner  of  law  as  well  for  the  ger 
as  for  the  ezrah.^^ 

One  may  fairly  ask  why  should  such  a  monstrous  crime 
as  murder  be  denounced  for  ezrah  (meaning  Israel)  and  for 
ger  when  the  general  law  governing  Israel  had  made  it  a 
capital  crime  in  terms  that  could  not  be  misunderstood. 
A  possible  explanation  may  be  that  in  the  early  times, 
the  ger  had  certain  community  privileges,  among  them 
the  right  of  judicial  cognizance  of  crimes  committed  by 


24Lev.  24.17-22. 


72  THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 

their  own  members  among  themselves,  and  that  the  enact¬ 
ment  in  question  contemplated  the  gers  assimilation  to 
the  Hebrew  community  and  abolished  such  separate 
jurisdiction,  so  that  like  the  Israelites  themselves,  the  ger 
would  be  answerable  to  Israel’s  judicial  tribunals — an 
enormous  step  in  the  advance  towards  equality. 

In  this  little  code  the  punishment  for  maiming  was 
according  to  the  law  of  retaliation. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  general  principle  of  Israelite 
law  in  case  of  personal  injuries  was  otherwise,  a  question 
arises  as  to  the  reason  for  this  seeming  conflict  of  laws. 
The  Israelite  law  regulating  the  punishment  for  personal 
injury  was  the  payment  of  adequate  money  damages  for 
the  loss  of  the  victim’s  time  and  for  the  cost  of  healing.^^ 
And  this  law  was  general,  for  it  contemplated  not  only 
injuries  inflicted  with  the  fist,  in  the  heat  of  passion,  in 
a  quarrel,  but  also  injuries  caused  by  a  dangerous  weapon, 
a  stone,  the  use  of  which  implies  malice  aforethought. 

The  provision  that  demands  payment  of  the  cost  of 
healing  implies  that  the  injury  is  not  permanent. 

The  maiming  of  this  Levitical  code  evidently  refers 
to  an  injury  which  cannot  be  healed,  such  as  the  loss  of 
an  eye  or  another  member  of  the  human  body.  Such  an 
injury  is  technically  termed  mum.  Then  there  is  the 
probability  that  among  the  crude  peasantry  of  Canaan, 
the  infliction  of  such  permanent  injuries  was  often  the 
purpose  of  the  fighters,  and  severe  measures  were  deemed 
necessary  to  overcome  such  a  habit.  It  may  be  remarked, 
in  passing,  that  even  in  modern  times,  there  were  places 
among  the  civilized  nations,  in  which  the  gouging  out  of 
an  adversary’s  eye  was  deemed  to  be  fair  fighting.  In 
this  connection  a  quotation  from  Webster’s  Unabridged 
(sub  voce  ‘‘Gouge”)  may  not  be  out  of  place: 


26Exod.  21.18,  19 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  AAXIENT  ISRAEL 


73 


“Gouge — To  force  out,  as  the  eye  of  a  person,  with 
the  thumb  or  finger  (U.S.). 

The  practice  of  gouging  is  said  to  have  existed  formerly 
in  the  interior  of  some  of  the  Southern  states,  but  was 
never  known  elsewhere,  except  by  hearsay  (Bartlett). 

Gouging  is  performed  by  twisting  the  forefinger  in 
a  lock  of  hair,  near  the  temple,  and  turning  the  eye  out 
of  the  socket  with  the  thumb  nail,  which  is  suffered  to  grow 
long  for  that  purpose  (Lambert).” 

This  little  code  so  far  as  it  provides  for  the  punish¬ 
ment  of  homicide  must  be  read  with  the  Numbers  statute 
which  makes  malice  aforethought  the  indispensable  ground 
for  convicting  a  man  of  the  capital  offence  of  murder, 
and  thereby  abolishes  the  lex  talionis  to  that  extent.  If 
malice  is  absent,  the  homicide  is  reduced  from  murder  to 
manslaughter  and  the  punishment  from  death  to  intern¬ 
ment  in  a  separated  city  frequently  called  “city  of  refuge” 
{Hr  miklat).  This  Hr  miklat  statute  is  expressly  declared 
to  be  “for  the  bene  Yisrael,  for  the  ger  and  for  the  toshab 
in  their  midst, or  as  it  is  put  in  the  Joshua  text:  “for 
kol  bene  Yisrael  and  for  the  ger  who  lives  in  their  midst. 

The  next  instance  of  the  class  we  are  considering  is 
the  following: 

Moses,  at  a  particular  period,  was  directed  to  speak 
to  the  children  of  Israel  concerning  certain  duties  which 
would  devolve  upon  them  after  their  settlement  in  Canaan. 
One  of  these  duties  referred  to  meal-offerings  and  drink- 
offerings  and  they  are  prescribed  in  adequate  details. 

2“Num.  35.22-29.  See  my  Ancient  Hebrew  Law  of  Homicide  (Philadelphia.  1915). 

2^Num.  35.15.  The  distinction  in  this  verse  between  ger  and  toshab  is  the  only 
instance  of  the  kind  in  Scripture.  That  there  is  some  error  or  confusion  in  the  text 
seems  obvious.  It  is  probable  that  the  scribe’s  ms.  read  “for  the  toshab"  and  as  the 
sakir  was  equally  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  statute,  he  probably  wrote  in  the  margin 
“for  the  ger"  in  order  to  note  that  both  toshab  and  sakir  were  included,  and  this  gloss 
probably  crept  into  the  text. 

The  Joshua  text  is  perfectly  clear.  It  declares  the  separated  cities  to  be  for  kol 
bene  Yisrael  and  for  the  ger.  The  toshab  is  not  mentioned. 

28Josh.  20.9. 


74 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


Thereupon  there  is  this  additional  provision : 

'‘Every  shall  do  these  things  after  this  manner.  .  . 
and  the  ger  or  whoever  may  be  among  you  throughout 
your  generations  and  will  offer  an  offering  made  by  fire.  .  . 
as  you  do,  so  shall  he  do.” 

"As  for  the  congregation  (Kahal)  there  shall  be  one 
(and  the  same)  statute  for  you  and  for  the  ger,  a  statute 
forever  throughout  your  generations;  as  ye  are,  so  shall 
the  ger  be  before  the  Lord.  One  law  and  one  ordinance 
shall  be  for  you  and  for  the  ger  living  with  you.”^^  Here 
the  ezrah  stands  for  Israel.  The  principle  therein  declared,, 
though  limited  to  this  particular  religious  activity  was 
couched  in  terms  to  make  a  profound  impression  on  the 
general  public,  who,  according  to  the  custom  of  homo¬ 
geneous  communities,  looked  upon  any  new  element 
introduced  as  inferior. 

There  were  certain  peculiarities  in  the  wording  of 
this  addition  which  are  worthy  of  attention.  Its  first 
word  is  ha-Kahal  which  J.P.S.  renders:  "As  for  the  con¬ 
gregation.”  That  this  is  not  a  satisfactory  rendering  needs 
no  remark.  Its  great  fault  is  that  it  conveys  no  idea.  The 
probability  is  that  it  was  a  scribe’s  marginal  note  which 
has  crept  into  the  text  and  this  seems  to  be  the  view  of 
Bertholet.^® 

How  the  scribe  came  to  write  such  a  note  may  be 
plausibly  explained.  The  word  Kahal  in  reference  tO' 
Israel,  in  the  numerous  instances  in  which  it  occurs,  always 
means  Israel  alone  without  the  infusion  of  any  others. 
Indeed  the  distinction  between  Kahal  and  ger  is  expressly 
declared  when  we  are  told  that  "there  was  not  a  word  of 

29Num.  15.2,  13-16. 

30Bertholet,  Die  Siellung  der  Israeliien  und  der  Juden  zu  den  Fremden,  p.  170,  note  2. 

siExod.  12.6;  16.3;  Lev.  4.13,  14,  21;  Num.  10.7;  14.5;  16.3,  33;  17.12;  19.20; 
20.4,  6,  10,  12;  22.4;  Dent.  9.10;  10.4;  18.16;  23.2,  3,  4,  9;  33.4;  1  Kings  8.14,  22;12.3; 

Jer.  26.17;  Micah  2.5;  1  Chron.  13.2,  4;  28.8;  29.1,  10,  20;  2  Chron.  1,3,  5;  6.3,  12,13; 
20.5;  23.3;  24.6;  28.14;  29.23,  28,  31,  32;  30.17,  23,  24,  25. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


75 


all  that  Moses  commanded,  which  Joshua  read  not  before 
kol-kehal  Yisrael  and  the  women  and  the  little  ones  and 
the  ger  that  walked  among  them.”^^ 

So  also  in  the  narrative  of  Hezekiah’s  great  Pesah 
festival  it  is  recorded  that  ''kol-kehal  Yehudah,  and  the 
priests,  and  the  Levites,  and  kol-ha-kahal  that  came  out 
of  Israel,  and  the  gerim  that  came  out  of  the  land  of  Israel 
and  that  dwelt  in  Judah  rejoiced. 

The  scribe  who  was  copying  our  ordinance  which 
declared  itself  to  be  one  statute  for  you  (Israel)  and  for  the 
ger  that  liveth  with  you,  which  further  declared  that  '‘as 
ye  are,  so  shall  the  ger  be  before  the  Lord,”  and  which 
emphasized  these  declarations  by  adding  that  "there  shall 
be  one  and  the  same  Torah  and  mishpat  for  you  and  for 
the  ger  living  with  you”  might  well  exclaim:  Behold,  the 
ger  has  become  incorporated  into  the  Kahal!  We  have 
now  an  enlarged  Kahall 

We  may  readily  affirm  his  view  and  conclude  that 
this  ordinance  contemplated  the  religious  assimilation  of 
the  ger  with  Israel. 

At  this  point  we  may  note  that  ger  is  not  mentioned 
in  Ezra-Nehemiah,  Ruth,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of 
Songs,  Lamentations,  Daniel  and  Esther,  a  significant 
indication  that  the  distinction  between  him  and  the  whole 
community  of  Israel,  had,  after  the  Return  from  Babylon, 
been  ignored  and  forgotten. 

The  next  ordinance  to  be  considered  is  the  statute 
providing  for  the  atonement  of  the  community  or  of  the 
individual  for  certain  violations  of  law  committed  by  error 
or  inadvertence  (shegagah).  If  the  fault  be  that  of  the 
congregation  {'edah)  a  specific  sin-offering  is  required, 
whereupon  the  priest  makes  atonement  for  the  whole 
congregation  of  the  bene  Israel  "and  they  shall  be  for- 

s2Josh.  8.35.  332  Chron.  30.25. 


76 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


given. This  effect  is  repeated  in  the  next  verse  with 
an  important  addition  thus:  “And  all  the  congregation 
of  the  children  of  Israel  shall  be  forgiven  and  the  ger  living 
in  their  midst;  it  was  the  error  of  kol  ha-' am  (the  whole 
people). 

If  the  fault  be  that  of  an  individual,  the  offering  to 
be  brought  by  him  is  specified,  and  the  priest  shall  make 
atonement  for  him  and  he  shall  be  forgiven.  “The  ezrah 
among  the  children  of  Israel  and  the  ger  that  liveth  In 
their  midst;  there  shall  be  one  law  (Torah)  for  him  that 
doeth  aught  In  error. 

Just  as  in  the  previous  ordinance  the  ger  is  considered 
to  be  part  of  the  Kahal,  so  in  this  he  is  viewed  as  part  of 
the  'Am.  And  the  Bene  Israel  and  the  ezrah  are  used  inter¬ 
changeably.  They  seem  to  fix  the  period  at  which  the 
ger  became  fully  assimilated,  civilly  and  religiously. 

There  is,  too,  a  statute  which  provides  for  purification 
from  defilement  by  the  dead.  We  may  call  this  the  statute 
of  the  Red  Heifer.  A  whole  chapter  is  devoted  to  it.^^ 
It  was  without  doubt  originally  binding  on  Israelites  only, 
but  in  the  tenth  verse  the  words  “and  unto  the  ger  dwelling 
in  their  midst”  follow  the  word  “Israel,”  that  being  the 
only  mention  of  the  ger  in  the  whole  chapter.  There  could 
be  no  more  intimate  fusion  of  ger  and  Israelite  than  in 
such  an  ordinance  looking  to  perfect  ritual  purity. 

We  may  here  pause  a  moment  to  consider  an  ordinance 
which  belongs  to  an  early  period  when  the  assimilation  of 
the  ger  was  not  yet  in  sight.  The  carcass  of  an  animal 
which  died  of  itself  (nebelah)  was  held  to  be  unfit  for  the 
food  of  Israelites.  It  was  an  abominable  thing. Never¬ 
theless,  as  in  other  times  and  climes  there  were  those  who 
violated  the  prohibition.  Jeremiah  denounces  such  sin¬ 
ners. Notwithstanding  the  aversion  with  which  the 

«Num.  15.25.  ^Ubid.  15.26.  ^eibid.  15.29.  »nbid.  chap.  19. 

*»Deut.  14.3,  21.  *9Jer.  16.18. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


77 


idea  of  an  Israelite’s  eating  such  a  thing  was  viewed, 
express  permission  was  granted  to  give  it  to  the  ger  to 
eat,  presumably  as  part  of  his  food-wage. 

As  the  assimilation  of  the  ger  progressed  there  was 
a  supplemental  ordinance  which  reads  thus:  "Every  person 
(nefesh)  that  eateth  nebelah  or  terefah,  among  ezrah  or 
among  ger  shall  wash  his  clothes  and  bathe  himself  in  water 
and  be  unclean  until  the  even;  then  shall  he  be  clean.  But 
if  he  wash  them  not,  nor  bathe  his  flesh,  then  he  shall 
bear  his  iniquity. 

Here  we  have  the  extremes  of  the  assimilation  progress 
of  the  ger.  At  first  he  is  treated  as  a  complete  outsider 
religiously,  while  in  the  last  instance,  he  is  regarded  as  an 
intimate  proselyte,  who,  if  he  fail  to  conform  to  the  require¬ 
ments,  "must  bear  his  iniquity,”  that  is,  must  expect 
direct  Divine  punishment. 

The  tithe  of  the  third  year  is  another  instance  showing 
the  relation  between  the  land-owner  and  the  ger.  This 
tithe  must  be  specially  set  aside  for  the  Levite,  the  ger^ 
the  yatom  and  the  almanah,  to  whom  it  shall  be  for  food.'^^ 

This  provision  is  usually  construed  as  a  charitable 
gift  to  the  poor.  It  is  more  probably  a  supplemental  com¬ 
pensation  for  laborers  in  the  land-owner’s  employ.  We 
have  in  a  previous  lecture  alluded  to  the  fact  that  Levites 
were  in  the  early  days  hired  for  wages  to  perform  certain 
religious  duties.  Nothing  is  more  likely  than  this:  that 
we  have  here  a  list  of  several  species  of  workers,  who  were 
entitled  to  these  third-year  tithes  as  a  bonus,  to  use  the 
language  of  our  contemporaries. 

This  ordinance  seems  devoid  of  any  religious  signifi- 

<®Deut.  14.21. 

<iLev.  17.15,  16.  The  expression  ‘‘bear  his  iniquity,”  as  has  been  suggested  in 
the  preceding  Lecture,  conveys  Divine  punishment  for  an  offence  committed  by  an 
Israelite.  Here  the  ezrah  (meaning  the  Israelite)  and  the  ger  are  put  in  the  same  class 
in  this  regard. 

«Exod.  28.43;  Num.  18.22. 


«Deut.  14.28,  29;  26.12,  13. 


78 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


cance  as  regards  the  ger.  He  need  not  do  anything  nor 
refrain  from  doing  anything.  It  is  a  civil  matter,  a  regula¬ 
tion  of  the  relations  between  employer  and  employees. 

C.  Besides  the  classes  of  cases  of  which  we  have  hither¬ 
to  treated,  there  is  a  third  class  which  shows  that  on  certain 
occasions  of  extraordinary  solemnity  in  Israel,  the  ger 
were  invited  to  be,  and  were,  present  as  if  they  were  an 
integral  portion  of  the  community. 

When  the  end  of  Moses’  life  was  near,  he  called  a 
meeting  of  “all  Israel’ and  exhorted  them  to  observe 
the  words  of  the  covenant  and  do  them.^s  In  oratorical 
style  he  addresses  them  by  classes,  “even  all  the  men  of 
Israel,  your  little  ones,  your  wives  and  thy  ger  that  are 
in  the  midst  of  thy  camp  from  the  hewer  of  thy  wood  unto 
the  drawer  of  thy  water;  that  thou  shouldst  enter  into 
the  covenant  of  the  Lord  thy  God  .  .  ’’  “which  the  Lord 
thy  God  maketh  with  thee  this  day.’’'^^  “Neither  with  you 
only  do  I  make  this  covenant  and  this  oath,  but  with  him 
that  standeth  here  with  us  this  day.  . 

In  his  portrayal  of  the  consequences  that  will  follow 
Israel’s  non-observance  of  the  law,  Moses  is  still  more 
emphatic  in  his  recognition  of  the  ger  as  an  integral  portion 
of  the  body  of  Israel.  These  are  his  words:  “The  ger 
asher  be-kirbeka  shall  mount  above  thee  higher  and  higher; 
and  thou  shalt  come  down  lower  and  lower.  He  shall 
lend  to  thee  and  thou  shalt  not  lend  to  him;  he  shall  be 
the  head  and  thou  shalt  be  the  tail.’’^^  Just  as  we  describe 
the  individual  body  by  saying  “from  head  to  foot,’’  so  he 
in  portraying  the  corporate  body  uses  the  words  “from 
head  to  tail.’’  In  both  cases  the  thought  is  that  the  body 
may  be  characterized  by  its  two  extremes. 

Again,  Moses  in  his  final  charge  to  “the  priests  the 
sons  of  Levi’’  and  to  all  the  elders  (zekenim)  of  Israeb^ 

«Deut.  29.1.  <5Ibid.  29.8.  «ibid.  29.9-11.  <Ubid.  29.13,  14. 
isibid.  28.43,  44.  «Ibid.  31.9. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IX  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


79 


directs  them  to  read  the  Law  once  in  every  seven  years, 
at  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  “before  all  Israel  in  their  hear- 
ing.“so  thereupon  he  defines  what  he  means  by  “all 

Israel.” 

“The  men  and  the  women  and  the  little  ones  and 
thy  ger  that  are  within  thy  gates,  that  they  may  hear, 
and  that  they  may  learn,  and  fear  the  Lord  your  God,  and 
OBSERVE  TO  DO  all  the  words  of  this  law,  and  that  their 
children,  who  have  not  known,  may  hear,  and  learn  to 
fear  the  Lord  your  God.  . 

And  finally  it  is  recorded  that  Joshua,  in  compliance 
with  the  direction  of  Moses  “wrote  there  (in  Mount  Ebal) 
upon  the  stones  a  copy  of  the  law  of  Moses.  .  .  And 

all  Israel  and  their  elders  and  officers,  and  their  judges, 
stood  on  this  side  the  ark  and  on  that  side  ...  as  well 
the  ger  as  the  ezrah.  .  .”5^ 

In  a  great  chapter  of  the  Holiness  Code,  fundamental 
moral  laws  for  the  governance  of  Israel  are  laid  down, 
the  violation  of  which  was  declared  to  have  resulted  in 
the  downfall  of  the  vanquished  Canaanites  and  Moses 
summed  it  all  up  by  saying:  “Ye  therefore  shall  keep 
My  statutes  and  Mine  ordinances  and  shall  not  do  any 
of  these  abominations — the  ezrah  and  the  ger  that  live  in 
your  midst. ”53  Here  again,  ezrah  means  Israel.  It  will 
be  seen  that  the  ger  are  no  longer  looked  upon  as  strangers, 
but  as  fully  accepted  proselytes,  forming  a  recognized 
portion  of  the  Israelite  religious  community. 

Ezekiel  seems  to  look  upon  them  in  the  same  light. 54 

D.  We  are  finally  to  consider  the  provisions  made  for 
the  improvement  of  the  gers  material  condition  and  the 
consequent  intellectual  and  spiritual  advantage  accruing 
to  him. 

Perhaps  the  most  important  improvement  in  the  gers 

wDeut.  31.11.  “Ibid.  31.12,  13.  “Josh.  8.32,33,  35. 

“Lev.  18.26.  “Ezek.  14.7,  8. 


80 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


material  condition  was  produced  by  granting  him  rest 
from  labor  on  the  weekly  Sabbath. 

The  tradition  was  uniform  that  this  institution  was 
of  the  greatest  antiquity.  The  accepted  belief  that  God 
himself  rested  on  that  day  from  the  work  of  Creation 
attests  this.  Moreover  when  Israel’s  support  in  the  wilder¬ 
ness  was  by  manna  which  fell  from  Heaven,  two  portions 
fell  on  Friday  in  order  to  relieve  the  people  from  the  work 
of  gathering  it  on  the  seventh  day.^^  Qf  the  various  texts 
commanding  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  only  three 
contain  any  reference  to  the  ger.^^  The  others  are  addressed 
to  Israel  alone. 

And  these  three  disclose  peculiarities  which  merit 
attention.  The  first  of  them^®  addressed  to  Israel  com¬ 
mands  that  on  the  seventh  day  ^‘thou  shalt  not  do  any 
manner  of  work,”  with  which  the  sentence  might  well  have 
ended,  but  it  goes  on  ''thou,  nor  thy  son,  nor  thy  daughter, 
nor  thy  man-servant  {'ehed)  nor  thy  maid-servant  (amah) 
nor  thy  cattle,  nor  thy  ger  that  is  within  thy  gates.”  That 
the  mention  of  the  slaves  should  be  followed  by  the  cattle 
may  well  give  the  impression  that  the  sentence  is  finished, 
when,  lo  and  behold!  after  the  cattle  come  the  free  em¬ 
ployees  as  if  by  an  afterthought  of  later  times. 

The  second  of  them^^  is  likewise  addressed  to  Israel 
and  commands  "On  the  seventh  day  thou  shalt  rest  that 
thine  ox  and  thine  ass  may  have  rest.”  After  this  care 
for  the  animals,  there  follows  the  additional  ground  "and 
the  son  of  thy  handmaid  {ben-amah)  and  the  ger  may  be 
refreshed.” 

The  family  are  not  mentioned,  probably  on  the  pre¬ 
sumption  that  by  the  use  of  the  second  person  the  land- 
owner  addressed  would  assume  that  his  family  was  included. 

“Exod.  16.22,23.  *6Ibid.  20.8-11;  23.12;  Deut.  5.14. 

‘’Exod.  16.26,  29;  31.13-16;  34.21;  35.2,  3;  Lev.  19.3,  30;  23.3. 

»8Exod.  20.10.  “Ibid.  23.12. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


81 


The  third  of  them^°  has  the  same  list  as  the  first  to 
wit:  thou,  thy  son,  thy  daughter,  thy  man-servant  ('ebed), 
thy  maid-servant  {amah),  and  then  follow  the  ox,  the  ass, 
or  any  of  the  cattle.  Only  after  these  comes  the  ger.  The 
most  curious  feature  of  this  text  is,  however,  what  follows 
the  ger,  namely  the  purpose  of  this  ordinance  which  is 
declared  to  be  that  ‘The  ‘ebed  and  the  amah  may  rest  as 
well  as  thou.”  Not  a  word  about  the  ger,  just  as  if  the 
sentence  had  been  finished  before  he  was  introduced  or 
thought  of. 

It  is  not  an  unreasonable  inference  that  these  three 
texts  were  originally  addressed  to  Israel  alone,  and  that 
the  anxious  care  for  the  workman,  slave  and  free,  ‘ebed 
and  ger  was  developed  in  the  course  of  Israel’s  history. 

To  return  now  to  our  Sabbath-law  prohibiting  work 
by  the  ger  on  that  day.  It  should  be  remarked  that  though 
the  benefit  of  it  was  primarily  material,  in  that  it  gave  the 
workman  a  substantial  interval  of  rest,  thereby  relieving 
the  monotony,  the  dulness  and  the  fatigue  incident  to 
unceasing  physical  labor  of  one  sort,  yet  the  advantage 
to  the  laborer  in  another  aspect  was  even  greater.  The 
leisure  afforded  by  the  regularly  recurring  period  of  rest 
at  short  intervals,  made  it  not  only  possible  but  inevitable 
that  he  should  observe  and  to  a  certain  degree  imitate 
the  habits  and  practices  of  his  master’s  family  and  the 
result  would  follow  that  he  would  cultivate  thoughts 
which  in  his  previous  condition  would  have  been  beyond 
his  reach. 

The  command  to  the  ger  to  abstain  from  work  on 
Atonement  day  was  another  long  step  in  advance.  The 
extraordinary  solemnity  surrounding  its  celebration  stim¬ 
ulated  reflection  in  a  high  degree.  He  saw  his  master 
deprived  not  only  of  food  but  of  other  ordinary  indulgences 

®®Deut.  5.14.  *'Lev.  16.29;  Nuni.  29.7. 


82 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


which  seemed  not  only  necessary  but  indispensable.  There 
were  moreover  stately  ceremonies  conducted  by  the  priests, 
which  were  well  adapted  to  rouse  curiosity  and  interest. 

So  too  the  Day  of  Memorial  (now  called  Rosh  ha- 
Shanah^^),  the  day  of  the  blowing  of  the  horn  (the  Shofar), 
could  well  rouse  emotions  and  implant  ideas  concerning 
a  man’s  being  and  his  future. 

Less  grave  than  these  solemn  occasions  was  the  Pesah- 
Massot  festival.  While  the  Hebrews  called  the  Massot 
(unleavened  bread),  the  bread  of  affliction,®^  the  fact  that 
the  festival  celebrated  the  rise  of  the  nation  gave  it  a  joyful 
color  which  mere  nicknames  could  not  overcome.  While 
the  ger  was  free  to  join  in  the  Pesah  ceremonies,  he  was 
also  free  to  refrain.  The  choice  was  his.®^  During  the 
Massot  festival,  however,  he  was  bound  to  abstain  from 
eating  leaven®®  and  the  probability  is  that  so  far  from 
being  conscious  of  any  affliction  he  enjoyed  it,  while  drink¬ 
ing  in  from  his  surroundings  historical  memories  in  which 
it  is  true  he  had  no  part,  but  which  nevertheless  tended 
to  raise  his  intellect  to  a  higher  plane.  When  a  mere  yokel 
loses  sight  for  a  time  of  the  insistent  present  and  dwells 
even  with  bare  superficiality  on  a  past  replete  with  great 
deeds,  he  imbibes  ideas  which  spiritualize  his  whole  being. 

Hebrew  life  though  essentially  solemn  was  not  monoto¬ 
nously  so.  There  was  a  joyous  side  and  the  ger  reaped 
the  full  benefit  of  it. 

At  the  gathering  of  the  first  fruits  of  the  wheat  harvest 
there  was  a  great  holiday, ®7  the  feast  of  weeks  (Shabuot). 
Naturally  there  were  impressive  ceremonies®®  but  these 
were  coupled  with  the  injunction  to  go  up  to  the  religious 
capital  with  the  family,  the  slaves,  the  Levite  and  the  ger, 
yatom  (fatherless)  and  almanah  (widow)  and  there  rejoice 

«2Lev.  16.32-34;  23.27-32.  e^ibid.  23.24;  Num.  29.1.  84Deut.  16.3. 

osExod.  12.48.  aUbid.  12.19*  »Ubid.  34.22.  a^Lev.  23.16-21. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


83 


before  the  Lord  thy  God/^  And  this  rejoicing  was  not 
to  be  merely  rhetorical  or  spiritual.  There  were  to  be 
feasts:  “Thou  shalt  eat  there. ”7“  And  the  practice  con¬ 
formed  to  the  ordinance. 

And  the  “Feast  of  Ingathering  at  the  end  of  the  year, 
when  thou  gatherest  in  thy  labors  out  of  the  field”  partook 
of  this  same  frolicsome  nature.  This  is  the  Festival  known 
as  Sukkot  (Tabernacles), one  of  the  most  jovial  features 
of  which  was,  doubtless,  a  great  army  of  paraders  bearing 
branches  of  palm-trees,  willows  of  the  brook  and  other 
plants.  Even  if  the  ger  were  not  admitted  to  join  in  the 
procession,  they  doubtless  enjoyed  looking  at  it,  as  we 
know  from  the  habits  of  people  of  our  own  time.  Needless 
to  say  there  were  abundant  ceremonies  besides. Here 
too  all  the  householder’s  dependents,  his  family,  his  slaves, 
the  Levite,  the  ger,  the  yatom  and  the  almanah  asher  bi-she- 
‘areka  were  to  “be  altogether  joyful. 

In  order  to  complete  this  branch  of  our  inquiry,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  cite  the  general  principles  laid  down 
for  the  treatment  of  the  ger  as  well  as  the  special  regulations 
made  in  his  behalf.  The  most  important  of  these  prac¬ 
tically  was  the  protection  of  the  ger  in  his  right  to  adequate 
wages  or  other  compensation. 

“A  ger  thou  shalt  not  wrong,  neither  shalt  thou  oppress 
him. In  view  of  the  relations  of  the  ger  with  his  em¬ 
ployer,  the  wrong  and  the  oppression  here  spoken  of  can 
mean  nothing  else  than  exacting  an  undue  amount  of  work 
or  whittling  down  the  compensation  for  it  so  as  to  render 
it  inadequate. 

The  farmer  may  not  go  back  to  recover  a  sheaf  for¬ 
gotten  in  the  harvest.  It  is  for  the  ger,  the  yatom  and  the 
almanah  nor  is  he  allowed  to  go  again  over  the  boughs  of 

«»Deut.  16.11.  7oibid.  14.2.3-27;  27.7.  Sam.  11.15. 

72Exod.  23.16.  ”Lev.  23.34,  39-43.  74Nehem.  8.1-18;  Num.  29.12-39. 

76Deut.  16.15.  70Exod.  22.20;  23.9;  Lev.  19.33. 


84 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


the  olive-trees.  What  is  left  also  goes  to  the  ger,  the  yatom 
and  the  almanah,  and  the  like  disposition  is  made  with 
respect  to  the  gleaning  of  the  vineyard. 

In  the  parallel  passages  of  Leviticus,  the  provision  is 
that  the  corner  of  the  field  must  not  be  reaped,  nor  the 
gleaning  of  the  harvest  or  the  vineyard  gathered.  They 
belong  to  the  ‘ani  and  the  ger.'^^ 

In  still  another  Levitical  passage  only  the  corner  of 
the  field  and  the  gleaning  of  the  harvest  are  mentioned 
and  these  are  to  be  for  the  ‘ani  and  the  ger^^ 

We  have  here  three  kinds  of  disposition  of  the  farmer’s 
remainders  after  the  collection  of  his  produce.  The  first 
specifies  in  more  detail  the  several  species  to  be  distributed 
and  awards  them  to  ger,  yatom  and  almanah,  the  second 
omits  the  olive-trees  but  names  the  other  species,  while 
the  third  omits  not  only  the  olive-trees  but  the  vineyard. 
Then  too  the  first  names  as  beneficiaries  the  ger,  the  yatom 
and  the  almanah  while  the  second  and  third  omit  the 
yatom  and  the  almanah  but  add  the  ‘ani. 

These  variations  lead  to  the  inference  that  at  the 
time  of  the  first  ordinance,  the  order  of  Hebrew  work¬ 
men  called  ‘ani  had  not  yet  been  regarded  as  a  class  by 
themselves;  but  that  the  bulk  of  the  agricultural  work 
was  done  by  the  non-Hebrew  classes  to  wit,  the  ger,  the 
yatom  and  the  almanah,  that  these  being  settled  on  the 
land  indefinitely,  were  not  paid  wages,  but  received  their 
support  in  kind  which  was  supplemented  at  harvest  time 
by  what  their  employers  doubtless  called  a  gratuity  in 
the  nature  of  the  bonus  so  anxiously  looked  for  by  the 
workmen  of  our  own  day. 

The  inference  from  the  second  and  third  ordinances 
is  that  the  ger  therein  named  was  used  as  a  general  term 
to  include  the  yatom  and  the  almanah  of  a  deceased  ger, 

”Deat.  24.19,20,  21.  ’sLev.  19.9,  10.  ’Ubid.  23.22. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IX  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


85 


which  words  were  therefore  omitted,  while  the  Hebrew 
workmen,  the  'ani  had  so  increased  as  to  form  a  class  by 
themselves  who  were  admitted  to  share  in  the  bonus. 

The  wages  of  a  sakir  shall  not  abide  with  thee  all 
night  until  the  morning. 

The  product  of  the  seventh  or  fallow  year  shall  be 
for  food  of  the  land-owner  and  of  all  his  dependents  includ¬ 
ing  his  sakir  and  his  toshah.^^  Moses,  in  his  charge  to  the 
judges  enjoins  upon  them  to  judge  righteously  between 
a  man  and  his  ger.  The  great  probability  is  that  the  ques¬ 
tions  arising  between  these  two  classes  referred  to  quantum 
of  labor  or  of  compensation.®'* 

At  the  end  of  every  three  years  the  land-owner  was 
ordered  to  lay  up  the  tithe  of  his  increase  and  this  belonged 
to  the  Levite,  the  ger,  the  fatherless  and  the  widow,  all, 
in  one  sense  or  another,  employees  of  the  owner.®® 

The  prophets,  Jeremiah, ®4  Ezekiel, and  Malachi,®^ 
especially  the  latter,  were  insistent  upon  obedience  to  these 
requirements.  The  general  principles,  illustrative  of  these 
regulations  were  emphatic. 

The  leading  one  was  enunciated  in  several  specific 
cases : 

When  the  punishment  for  various  offences  was  laid 
down,  the  pronouncement  with  which  the  little  code  con¬ 
cluded  was: 

“One  mishpat  shall  be  for  you,  as  well  for  the  ger  as 
for  the  ezrah}"^ 

When  the  Pesah  of  the  second  month  was  instituted 
the  doctrine  was  repeated  in  words  nearly  similar.®® 

And  the  like  occurred  in  respect  to  offerings®^  and 
to  the  atonement  for  sins  of  inadvertence.^" 

The  persistent  repetition  of  this  declaration  undoubt- 

“Lev.  19.13;  Deut.  24.14.  15.  “Lev.  25.6.  s'^Deut.  1.16;  24.17;  27.19. 

MIbid.  14.28,  29;  26.12,  13.  ^Jer.  7.6;  22.3.  ^sEzek.  21.1,  29. 

««Mal.  3.5.  s^Lev.  24.22.  »»Num.  9.14.  »»Ibid.  15.16. 

Mbid.  15.29. 


86 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


edly  gave  it  the  effect  of  a  principle  generally  applicable. 
The  fact  that  it  failed  of  universal  effect  is  attested  by 
the  speeches  of  the  prophets.  This,  however,  need  not 
surprise  us.  Ancient  men  were  much  like  moderns.  In 
their  day  as  in  ours,  natives  looked  upon  themselves 
as  superior  to  men  of  other  nations,  and  even  in  their  most 
liberal  moods,  exhibited  as  against  them,  a  certain  con¬ 
descension.  This  trait  too  was  heightened  and  exaggerated 
then  as  now  when  the  others  were  inferior  in  prosperity 
and  social  standing. 

These  mighty  efforts  to  produce  unity  between  Israel 
and  the  ger  were  further  strengthened  by  such  declarations 
as  these: 

"Thou  shalt  love  him  (the  ger)  as  thyself;  for  ye  were 
gerim  in  the  land  of  Egypt.”’* 

"He  (the  Lord)  loveth  the  ger  in  giving  him  food  and 
raiment.  Love  ye  therefore  the  ger\  for  ye  were  gerim  in 
the  land  of  Egypt.  The  effort  was  to  remind  the  superior 
that  in  his  origin,  he  was  as  humble  as  the  class  he  wished 
to  look  down  upon. 

While  naturally  the  object  was  not  fully  attained, 
there  was  undoubtedly  created  a  higher  and  purer  senti¬ 
ment  regarding  the  relation  between  Hebrew  employer 
and  non-Hebrew  employed. 

We  have  now  reached  a  point  where  we  shall  feel  at 
liberty  to  assume  that  the  ger  were  a  large  population  of 
Palestinian  natives  who,  by  the  conquest,  lost  their  lands 
and  became  employees  in  the  service  of  the  conqueror. 

We  shall  next  proceed  to  ascertain  whether  there 
were  other  classes  of  non-Hebrew  laborers;  and  this  brings 
us  back  to  our  starting-point,  the  classification  of  ger  with 
yatom  and  almanah  (fatherless  and  widow)  which  we  shall 
proceed  to  consider  in  the  next  Lecture. 


»iLev.  19.34. 


s^Deut.  10.18,  19. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


IV 

The  frequent  collocation  of  ger  with  yatom  and  almanah 
started  our  whole  inquiry.  The  accepted  notion  that  they 
were  classed  together  because  they  all  needed  the  kindliness 
and  charity  of  the  public  seemed  inadequate. 

The  result  of  the  inquiry  so  far  has  been  that  we  I 
have  collected  evidence  enough  to  establish  the  fact  that  ! 
the  ger  were  a  large  class,  that  they  were  the  conquered  i 

inhabitants  of  Palestine,  and  that*’ the  majority  of  them  i 

\ 

had  remained  on  the  land  as  feudal  employees  of  the  con-  ( 
querors.  That  these  so  settled  were  called  toshahim,  ger-  ) 
toshah,  or  ger  we-toshab.  That  tlie  minority  not  so  settled  ; 

^  —  .  ... -  ^1.1,1,  ,  BP  I  W'l.— l.nBn'WIIM  w- 

became  sekirim  or  wage-earners.  To  speak  of  a  large 
population  of  industrious  laborers  as  objects  of  charity 
is  merely  absurd. 

Then  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  collocation  of  ger, 
yatom  and  almanah?.  If  their  being  classed  together  gives 
them  certain  leading  characteristics  in  common,  it  would 
seem  that  the  ger' s  leading  characteristic,  to  wit,  being 
a  laborer,  might  inhere  also  in  the  yatom  and  the  almanah, 
however  fantastic  such  a  view  might  at  first  appear. 

In  every 'instance  where  the  locution  is  used,  it  is  quitfe 
consistent  with  such  a  view,  especially  when  we  consider 
that  the  peasant  gerim  were  landless  and  were  dependent 
on  their  compensation  for  the  support  of  their  families. 
When  such  a  ger  died,  what  was  to  become  of  his  widow 
and  children?  The  interest  of  the  land-owner  would  be 
to  oust  them  from  their  cottage  and  to  put  in  their  place 
a  strong  man  capable  to  do  what  the  decedent  had  done. 

87 


88 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


The  humanitarian  policy  of  the  state  would  have  been 
defeated  if  the  land-owner  had  been  allowed  to  consult 
his  pecuniary  interest  only.  The  best  that  could  be  done 
was  to  leave  the  family  in  their  place  and  set  them  to  work 
doing  as  much  as  possible.  This  was  probably  a  fair  pro¬ 
portion  of  what  had  been  done  before,  since  doubtless  the 
ger  had  been  assisted  in  his  work  by  his  wife  and  such  of 
his  children  as  were  old  enough  to  help.  The  case  of  Ruth 
shows  that  the  practice  of  women  to  work  in  the  field  was 
well  established.  Boaz,  in  addressing  her,  said:  “Go  not 
to  glean  in  another  field,  but  abide  here  fast  by  my  maidens. 
Let  thine  eyes  be  on  the  field  that  they  do  reap,  and  go 
thou  after  them.”^ 

And  that  children  would  be  compelled  to  work  appears 
plainly  from  Job’s  bitter  speech  against  the  avaricious 
rich,  however  exaggerated  its  terms. ^ 

Our  ger,  yatom  and  almanah  are  coupled  together 
in  at  least  sixteen  instances  which  may  be  divided  into 
five  classes.  Six  of  them  refer  to  the  oppression  of  laborers 
by  their  employers,  five  speak  of  their  participation  in 
the  fruits  of  the  soil,  two  of  their  joinder  with  other  em¬ 
ployees  in  great  celebrations  by  their  masters,  two  enjoin 
on  the  judges  the  duty  of  disregarding  differences  of  status 
among  litigants  and  commanding  them  to  do  justice  to 
laborers  and  the  sixteenth  is  a  Divine  fiat  announcing 
that  Heaven  itself  takes  special  care  of  yatom,  almanah 
and  ger. 

I.  The  first  class  of  six  are  these: 

a)  “The  ger  thou  shalt  not  wrong  {lo  toneh)  nor  oppress 
him  {lo  tilhasefinu).  .  .  Kol  almanah  we-yatom  ye 

shall  not  afflict  {lo  te‘annun).”^ 


iRuth  2.8,  9. 


2Job  24.3-12. 


3E.K0d.  22.20,  21. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


89 


b)  Jeremiah  speaking  at  the  gate  of  the  Temple  says: 

“Do  justice  between  a  man  and  his  rea'  (the 
versions  render:  neighbor,  but  the  meaning  here  is 
his  Hebrew  employee) ;  do  not  oppress  {lo  ta'ashoku) 
ger,  yatom  and  almanah.''^ 

c)  Jeremiah,  under  instruction,  addresses  the  King 
in  these  words: 

“Execute  ye  justice  and  righteousness,  and  de¬ 
liver  the  spoiled  (gazul,  robbed)  out  of  the  hand  of 
the  oppressor  {‘ashok),  and  do  no  wrong  (al-tonu), 
do  no  violence  {al  tahmosu)  to  the  ger,  yatotn  and 
almanah.''^ 

d)  Ezekiel,  inveighing  against  the  princes  {nesiim) 
of  Israel  charges  them  with  grave  crimes,  among  them 
these:  “They  have  dealt  by  oppression  {‘asu  be- 
^oshek)  with  the  ger;  they  have  wronged  (honu)  yatom 
and  almanah.'"^ 

e)  Zechariah,  harping  on  the  same  subject  says:  “Do 
not  oppress  {al  ta‘ashoku)  the  almanah  and  yatom, 
the  ger  and  the  ^ani."'^ 

f)  And  finally  Malachi  closes  the  prophetic  era  by 
denouncing  “those  that  oppress  (oshekim)  the  sakir 
in  his  wages,  the  almanah  and  the  yatom  and  turn 
aside  the  ger  from  his  right  {matte  ger)."^ 

In  these  six  passages  denouncing  oppression  five 
words  are  used.  Their  basic  forms  are:  'ashak  in  five  of 
the  texts,  honah  in  three,  and  ‘innah,  lahas,  and  Jiamas 
each  in  one.  They  all  signify  the  ill-treatment  of  one  by 
another,  oppression.  There  might  be  room  for  speculation 
as  to  what  kind  of  oppression  may  be  referred  to.  Fortu¬ 
nately,  the  Malachi  text  solves  the  problem,  by  the  specific 
statement  that  the  'oshek,  the  oppressor,  is  wronging  the 
employee,  the  sakir  in  respect  to  his  wages.  The  inference 

*Jer.  7.5,  6.  Her.  22.3.  ‘Ezek.  22.7.  ^Zech.  7.10.  »Mal.  3.5. 


90 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


is  obvious  that  the  other  classes  mentioned  with  the  sakir 
are  fellow-employees  and  that  in  that  relation  they  are 
the  victims  of  ill-treatment  by  their  employers. 

The  dictionaries  lay  especial  stress  on  the  idea  of 
extortion  involved  in  'ashak^^  or  as  the  Hebrew  with  brutal 
frankness  calls  it  ''robbery”  (gazul)  and  on  the  idea  of 
ill-treatment  of  the  poor  and  weak  involved  in  honahf'^ 
and  these  are  the  two  words  running  through  all  these 
passages. 

Oppression  as  between  employer  and  employee  would 
likely  be  of  two  kinds,  overworking  and  under-payment. 
Needless  to  say,  a  cruel  master  might  be  guilty  in  both 
respects.  In  the  case  of  the  sakir  there  might  be  an  addi¬ 
tional  mode  of  oppression.  He  was  the  only  laborer  who 
was  to  be  paid  a  daily  wage  at  sundown.  The  law  is  im¬ 
perative:  ''The  wages  of  a  sakir  shall  not  abide  with  thee 
all  night  until  the  morning.””  ''In  the  same  day  thou 
shalt  give  him  his  hire,  neither  shall  the  sun  go  down  upon 
it.””  An  avaricious  master  would  violate  this  law,  just 
as  selfish  and  inconsiderate  men  violate  other  laws. 

H.  Next  to  this  series  of  six  passages  are  five,  in  which 
the  ger,  yatom  and  almanah  are  made  to  participate  in 
the  fruits  of  the  soib^  and  following  these  five  are: 

HI.  Two  passages  which  represent  the  ger^  the  yatom 
and  the  almanah  as  enjoying,  with  other  employees,  great 
national  and  religious  celebrations,  all  under  the  charge 
of  their  employers. 

The  seven  passages  of  these  two  series  have  been 
sufficiently  considered  in  the  previous  Lecture  and  need 
not  be  repeated  here. 

IV.  We  have,  next,  the  two  passages  which  enjoin  the  duty  of 
disregarding  differences  of  status  among  men.  They  are  these : 

“Brown-Driver,  Hebrew  and  English  Lexicon,  p.  798.  ^®Ibid.,  p.  413. 

”Lev.  19.13.  i2Deut.  24.15.  “Ibid.  14.29;  24.2Q,  21;  26.12,  13. 

“Ibid.  16.11,  14. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


91 


“Thou  shalt  not  pervert  the  justice  due  to  the  ger^ 
yatom  {mishpat  ger  yatom)  nor  take  the  almanah^s  raiment 
to  pledge. 

“Cursed  be  he  that  perverteth  the  justice  due  to  ger- 
yatom  we-almanah.  . 
and  finally  we  have  this  passage: 

V.  “He  (the  Lord)  doth  execute  justice  {*oseh  mishpat) 
for  the  yatom  and  the  almanah  and  loveth  the  ger  in  giving 
him  food  and  raiment. 

An  attentive  consideration  of  these  sixteen  passages 
discloses  a  certain  historical  order  showing  the  stages  at 
which  the  various  classes  of  laborers  among  the  Hebrews 
were  formed. 

At  first,  that  is,  as  soon  as  the  natives  had  been  sub¬ 
jected  to  the  loss  of  their  land  and  the  bulk  of  them  had 
become  a  settled  peasantry  under  their  new  masters,  the 
texts  are  confined  to  the  ger,  yatom  and  almanah  alone 
without  thought  of  any  other  class.  There  was  urgent 
need  for  their  protection  and  there  were  prompt  measures 
to  secure  it  for  them. 

These  texts  are  found  in  four  verses  only.  In  the  verse 
which  represents  God  as  speaking  for  justice  and  love  to 
them  no  other  class  is  mentioned.  This  is  the  text  which 
has  just  been  cited  at  length.'® 

One  of  the  texts  which  provides  for  a  supplemental 
compensation  in  addition  to  the  ordinary  reward  given  to 
working-people  is  composed  of  three  verses:  the  first  of 
them  directs  that  a  forgotten  sheaf  may  not  be  gone  after 
by  the  farmer  but  must  be  left  for  the  ger,  yatom  and 
almanah, the  second  imposes  on  the  farmer  the  same 
duty  of  abstention  after  beating  his  olive-trees  and  reserves 
what  remains  thereon  for  the  ger,  yatom  and  almanah,^^ 

isDeut.  24.17.  i«lbid.  27.19.  JUbid.  10.18.  lUbid.  10.18. 

J»Ibid.  24.19.  20Ibid.  24.20. 


92 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IX  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


while  the  third  has  an  analogous  provision  in  the  gleaning 
of  the  vineyard. 

Though  these  are  three  separate  verses  in  each  of 
which  the  same  beneficiaries  of  the  farmer’s  abstention 
are  named,  they  are  in  reality  but  one  ordinance,  inculcat¬ 
ing  one  duty,  namely,  the  duty  of  giving  to  the  laborers 
whose  active  work  contributes  greatly  to  the  increase  of 
the  produce,  an  extra  gratuity  which  has  a  tendency  to 
cheer  and  exalt  them. 

The  result  reached  from  a  consideration  of  all  the 
passages  may  fairly  be  said  to  be  that  the  yatom  and  the 
almanah  when  mentioned  as  pendents  to  the  ger,  are  not 
Israelites,  but  are  the  gers  (the  non-Hebrew’s)  widow  and 
children,  who  after  the  father’s  death  were  allowed  to 
remain  where  they  had  always  been,  on  condition  of  course 
that  they  should  become  employees  in  his  stead.  This 
conclusion  however  does  not  negative  the  idea  that  there 
are  texts  which  speak  of  the  yatom  and  almanah  of  Hebrews. 

When  the  Hebrew  widow  had  no  child,  the  death  of 
her  husband  practically  threw  her  back  on  her  father  or 
his  family. If,  however,  she  had  a  child,  the  husband’s 
land  descended  and  the  widow  and  children  remained  on 
it  as  before.  The  gehul  almanah^^  is  referred  to  as  well  as 
the  prohibition  against  trespassing  on  the  fields  of  the 
yatom. So  too  the  avaricious  men  are  described  by 
Job  as  being  alert  to  drive  away  the  ass  of  the  yetomim 
and  to  take  the  almanah' s  ox  for  a  pledge. With  a  funda¬ 
mental  law  which  aimed  at  equality  of  land-ownership  by 
individuals,  the  invasion  of  the  neighbor’s  land  by  crossing 
the  boundary  line  {gehul)  or  by  obliterating  it  so  as  to  seize 
a  portion  of  the  neighbor’s  land  was  a  heinous  offence: 
“Thou  shalt  not  remove  thy  neighbor’s  land-mark  {gehul)" 
is  a  stern  prohibition  which  is  drastically  strengthened  by 

2iDeut,  24.21.  22Lev.  22.13.  ^^Prov.  15.25.  ^Ubid.  23.10. 

26Job  24.3.  26  Deut.  19.14. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


93 


the  Arur-code:  “Cursed  be  he  that  removeth  his  neigh¬ 
bor’s  (gebul)  land-mark. Hosea,  denouncing  the  princes 
of  Judah,  finds  nothing  more  degrading  to  characterize 
them  than  likening  them  to  those  “that  remove  the  land¬ 
mark.’’^®  Proverbs  too  repeats  the  accepted  view:  “Remove 
not  the  ancient  land-mark  which  thy  fathers  have  set.”^^ 

The  Hebrew  yatom  and  almanah  were  therefore  not 
objects  of  charity  in  general.  They  did  need  protection, 
however,  against  the  greed  of  wily  land-grabbers  who 
were  ever  ready  to  take  advantage  of  the  helplessness 
not  only  of  unsophisticated  persons  suddenly  thrust  into 
a  position  of  responsibility  without  adequate  preparation, 
but  of  those  land-owners  whose  management  of  their 
farms  was  not  efficient  enough  to  assure  their  ability  to 
hold  them  permanently.  Doubtless  the  current  philosophy 
and  morality  of  the  avaricious  was  satisfactory  to  their 
class  as  it  has  been  from  that  day  to  this:  The  fittest 
survive.  Whoso  fails  should  abandon  the  task  and  serve 
others  who  can  do  better,  and  so  on  and  so  on. 

The  prophets  did  not  see  eye  to  eye  with  them.  Amos 
thunders  against  them:  “They  sell  the  innocent  for  silver 
and  the  ebyon  for  a  pair  of  shoes.  They  pant  after  the 
dust  of  the  earth  on  the  head  of  the  dallim  and  pervert 
the  right  of  the  humble  {'anawim)d'^°  Isaiah,  somewhat 
later  (8th  century  B.C.),  is  specific  in  his  denunciation  of 
their  efforts  to  gain  a  monopoly  of  the  land: 

“Woe  unto  them  that  join  house  to  house. 

That  lay  field  to  field. 

Till  there  be  no  room,  and  ye  be  made  to  dwell 
Alone  in  the  midst  of  the  land!’’^^ 
and  Micah  (724  B.c.  and  later)  does  the  same. 

“Woe  to  them  that  devise  iniquity 
And  work  evil  upon  their  beds: 

*meut.  27.17.  ^Rjiosea  5.10.  *»Prov.  22.20.  Amos  2.7.  *‘Isa.  5.8. 


94 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


When  the  morning  is  light,  they  execute  it, 

Because  it  is  in  the  power  of  their  hand. 

And  they  covet  fields,  and  grab  them;  (gazalu) 

And  houses,  and  take  them  away; 

They  oppress  a  man  and  his  house  (family) 

Even  a  man  and  his  heritage  {nahalah)^^^ 

After  the  provisions  for  securing  the  ger,  yatom  and 
almanah  there  is  another  stage  which  introduces  alongside 
of  them  a  new  class  of  beneficiaries,  namely  the  Levite 
class.  This  disposition  is  made  in  three  verses,  the  first 
of  them  providing  that  the  tithe  of  the  third  year,  shall 
be  disposed  of  as  subsidiary  compensation  to  '‘the  Levite, 
the  ger,  the  yatom  and  the  almanah  that  are  within  thy 
gates”  {asher  bi-sJie  areka)  the  second  of  them  directing 
that  the  rejoicing  on  the  Feast  of  Weeks  at  the  national 
sanctuary  thereafter  to  be  established,  shall  be  by  the 
employer  and  his  family,  by  his  slaves,  by  “the  Levite 
that  is  within  thy  gates”  and  by  “the  ger,  the  yatom  and 
the  almanah  that  are  in  the  midst  of  thee”  {asher  be-kir- 
beka),^^  and  the  third  of  them  laying  down  a  similar  rule 
for  the  celebration  of  the  Tabernacle  festival  the  bene¬ 
ficiaries  of  which  are  to  be  the  same  as  those  named  for 
the  Feast  of  Weeks,  namely,  the  employer  and  his  family, 
his  slaves  “and  the  Levite,  the  ger,  the  yatom  and  the 
almanah  that  are  within  thy  gates. 

We  have  in  a  previous  lecture  referred  to  the  case  of 
the  Ephraimite  Micah  who  employed  a  Levite  of  the 
mishpahah  of  Judah  to  be  his  ab  and  his  kohen  promising 
to  pay  him  for  this  service  ten  pieces  of  silver  by  the  year 
and  a  suit  of  apparel  and  his  victuals.  And  on  these  terms 
the  bargain  was  concluded.  The  narrative  is  of  great 
antiquity.  Though  the  facts  as  told  were  shocking  to 
the  sensibilities  of  the  compiler,  he  recited  them  fully. 

®2Micah  2.1,  2.  ssDeut.  14.29.  34ibid.  16.11.  »Ubid.  16.14. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IX  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


95 


The  chapter  in  which  the  narrative  occurs  is  well  worth 
reading.3^ 

It  shows  why  the  Levites  like  the  ger,  the  yatom  and 
the  almanah  are  located  hish'areka  or  be-kirbeka  {within 
thy  gates  or  in  thy  circle).  They  are  all  resident  on  the 
estate  of  the  owner  in  whose  employ  they  are.  A  wide¬ 
spread  notion  that  these  words  refer  to  residence  in  Israel 
at  large,  is  clearly  inept.  They  point  directly  to  the  land 
of  an  individual  and  relate  to  persons  under  his  control. 

When  a  central  sanctuary  was  established,  perhaps 
at  Shiloh,  a  new  governmental  policy  was  instituted.  The 
sanctuaries  on  private  estates  were  to  be  discontinued. 
They  were  an  obstacle  to  the  unity  of  the  state  and  more¬ 
over  tended  to  perpetuate  pagan  practices. 

The  measure  designed  to  abolish  them  was  the  in¬ 
stitution  of  a  system  of  pilgrimages  to  the  central  sanctuary. 
There  were  to  be  three  of  these  pilgrimages  in  every  year, 
one  on  Pesah,  the  next  on  Shabu^ot  and  last  and  greatest 
of  all,  the  one  on  Sukkot.^’’  Though  the  ordinances  com¬ 
manding  these  pilgrimages  were  doubtless  observed,  the 
result  was  not  what  had  been  hoped  for.  When  the  owners 
of  the  private  sanctuaries  with  their  retainers  returned 
home,  many  of  them  adhered  to  their  ancient  customs  and 
consulted  their  Levites  as  of  yore. 

To  overcome  this,  inducements  were  offered  to  the 
Levites  coming  from  these  estates  to  remain  at  the  central 
sanctuary,  which  movement,  if  successful,  would  finally 
cause  the  local  sanctuaries  to  wither  away  and  in  the  end 
perish  from  inanition. 

The  ordinance  on  this  subject  was  well  adapted  to 
effect  the  purpose.  It  is  as  follows: 

“And  if  (when)  a  Levite  come  from  any  of  thy  gates 

*“Jud.  chap.  17. 

a^Exod.  23.14-17;  34.23;  Deut.  16.16;  1  Kings  8.2,  65;  2  Kings  23.23;  Neh.  8.18; 
2  Chron.  7.8,  9. 


96 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


{me-ahad  she‘areka)  out  of  all  Israel,  where  he  lives  (gar 
sham),  and  come  with  all  the  desire  of  his  soul  unto  the 
place  which  the  Lord  shall  choose;  then  he  shall  minister 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  his  God,  as  all  his  brethren  the 
Levites  do,  who  stand  there  before  the  Lord.  They  shall 
have  like  portions  to  eat,  beside  that  which  is  his  due  accord- 
ing  to  the  fathers'  houses"  {'at  ha-abot).^^  This  is  the  J.P.S. 
version.  A.  V.  renders  the  last  phrase  “that  which  cometh 
of  the  sale  of  his  patrimony,”  and  this  translation  is  adhered 
to  by  the  English  and  American  Revisions. 

That  all  these  renderings  are  inadequate  seems  clear. 
What  the  ordinance  really  meant  was,  that  the  local 
Levites  who  would  remain  at  the  central  sanctuary,  were 
allowed  to  do  so  without  abandoning  their  local  position 
and  emoluments.  Many  would  have  dreaded  the  change,- 
if  it  involved  the  loss  of  what  they  had,  because  of  the 
fear  that  their  position  at  the  central  sanctuary  would 
be  uncertain,  and  that  if  they  should  be  deprived  of  it, 
they  would  be  turned  loose  upon  the  country  and  be  com- 
pelled  to  wander  round  in  order  to  obtain  proper  places. 

Hence,  the  provision  that  they  should  retain  what 
they  had  at  home  namely  “that  which  belonged  to  the 
abot,"  the  latter  word  meaning  the  country  Levites  them¬ 
selves.  It  will  be  remembered  that  Micah  employed  his 
Levite  as  kohen  and  as  ab.^^ 

We  may  now  close  the  discussion  concerning  the 
ger,  yatom  and  almanah,  in  the  belief  that  their  position 
as  laborers  of  non-Hebrew  origin  has  been  sufficiently 
established. 

It  behooves  us  now  to  inquire  concerning  the  existence 
of  [Hebrew,  labor-classes. 

Our  information  on  this  point  is  derivable  from  observ¬ 
ing  the  texts  relating  to  ger,  yatom  and  almanah  in  order 

88Deut.  18.6,  7,  8.  ssjud.  17.10. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


97 


to  learn  whether,  associated  with  these,  there  are  other 
classes  of  persons  who  are  laborers  like  themselves,  and 
if  there  are  such,  whether  they  differ  from  the  ger  in  that 
they  are  of  pure  Hebrew  blood.  The  sixteen  instances 
which  speak  of  the  ger,  yaiom  and  almanah  are,  as  has  been 
said,  divisible  into  five  classes: 

Of  the  first  class  referring  to  oppression  of  ger,  yatom 
and  almanah  by  their  employers  there  are  six,  and  five  of 
these  are  connected  with  other  terms  denoting  classes  of 
persons  in  the  same  category  as  themselves,  to  wit,  free  ’ 
laborers. 

Following  the  order  just  adopted  we  find  that  the 
first  of  the  six  texts.  Exodus  22.20,  21,  associates  the  fol¬ 
lowing  classes: 

The  'ani  Hmmak  (which  I  would  render,  the  ^ani  in 
thy  employ), 4°  thy  rea  the  dal‘^'^  and  the  ehyon.^^ 

The  second  of  these  six  texts,  Jeremiah  7.6,  is  accom¬ 
panied  by  the  rea^^^^ 

The  third  of  them,  Jeremiah  22.3,  is  associated  with  the 
rea'^^  and  with  the  ^ani  we-ehyon.^^ 

The  fourth  of  them,  Ezekiel  22.1 ,  is  followed  by  the  rea^^^ 
and  by  the  'ani  we-ehyon^^  while, 

The  fifth  of  them,  Zechariah  7.10,  utters  ger,  yatom,  almanah 
and  'ani  in  one  breath. 

The  sixth,  Malachi  3.5,  adds  none  of  these  terms,  but 
introduces  the  sakir  in  the  same  sentence  with  the  ger, 
yatom  and  almanah. 

These  terms  for  persons  in  a  position  similar  to  the 
ger,  yatom  and  almanah  are  not  fanciful  superfluities. 
They  denote  a  substantial  distinction,  which  is,  that  the 
'ani,  the  rea  ,  the  dal  and  the  ehyon  are  Hebrews,  while 
the  others  are  the  native  Canaanites  and  their  progeny, 

«Exod.  22.24.  ^Ubid.  22.25.  «ibid.  23.3;  30.15.  «Ibid.  23.6,  11. 

«Jer.  7.5.  “Ibid.  22.13.  “Ibid.  22.17.  “Ezek.  22.12. 

“Ibid.  22.29. 


98 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


who  have  become  laborers  for  their  Hebrew  conquerors. 
There  are  some  valuable  hints  favoring  this  conclusion 
scattered  through  the  texts,  e.g. :  If  thou  lend  money 
to  any  of  My  people  even  to  the  ^ani  thy  brother, 

thy  ^anij  thy  ebyon;^°  the  ehyonim  of  thy  people  an  ebyon, 
one  of  thy  brethren  thy  brother,  the  ebyon.^^ 

“Thou  shalt  not  respect  the  person  of  the  dal,  nor 
favor  the  person  of  the  mighty;  but  in  righteousness  shalt 
thou  judge  thy  fellow''  (famiteka)  (^amit  wherever  it  occurs 
refers  to  a  fellow-Israelite).^'^ 

The  dallim  of  the  'Am  (referring  to  Israelites). 

As  regards  the  rea'  there  can  be  no  doubt  the  word 
is  in  direct  contrast  with  ger  which  refers  to  the  non- 
Israelite.  Its  use  for  Israelite  is  exemplified  in  the  follow¬ 
ing:  “Thou  shalt  not  go  up  and  down  as  a  tale-bearer 
among  thy  people,  neither  shalt  thou  stand  idly  by  the 
blood  of  thy  rea' .  .  .  Thou  shalt  not  hate  thy  brother 

in  thy  heart;  thou  shalt  surely  rebuke  thy  'amit. 

Thou  shalt  not  take  vengeance,  nor  bear  grudge  against 
the  children  of  thy  people,  but  thou  shalt  love  thy  rea'  as 
thyself.  . 

Note  that  later  on  in  the  same  chapter,  there  is  exactly 
the  same  wording  with  reference  to  the  ger:  Thou  shalt 
love  him  as  thyself. 

The  sakir  whom  Malachi  mentions  in  addition  to  the 
ger,  yatom  and  almanah  had  a  rather  complicated  history. 
At  first  he  was  a  mere  sub-division  of  the  ger;  later  on  a 
class  of  Hebrew  sekirim  arose  and  the  ger  sakir  and  the 
Hebrew  sakir  existed  side  by  side.^^  Probably  by  Malachi's 
time  (he  was  about  300  years  later  than  Amos)  the  dis¬ 
tinction  between  the  two  classes  had  become  obliterated  and 
all  the  sekirim  were  regarded  as  of  genuine  Hebrew  stock. 

«Exod.  22.24.  ^ooeut.  15.11.  ^lExod.  23.11.  62Deut.  15.7. 

“Ibid  15.9.  siLev.  19.15.  ssjer.  39.10.  s^Lev.  19.16,  17,  18. 

“Ibid.  19.34.  ssDeut.  24.14. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


99 


It  is,  of  course,  unnecessary  to  remind  you  that  the  * 
special  meaning  of  laborers  here  attributed  to  all  these 
words  is  not  generally  accepted.  The  general  meaning 
of  'ani,  according  to  the  Dictionary  is  “poor,  afflicted, 
humble”;  that  of  ehyon:  “in  want,  needy,  poor;”  that  of 
dal:  “the  poor”  and  that  of  rea' :  “friend,  companion, 
fellow.  ”59 

The  disparity  need  not  surprise  us.  We  have  but 
to  remember  that  in  pretty  nearly  every  language,  English 
not  excepted,  the  great  mass  of  people  who  are  not  rich, 
but  who  work  for  a  living  are  curtly  called  “the  poor”.^*’ 

Indeed  Murray  illustrates  his  definition  by  quoting 
from  Burke  who  denounces  as  base  and  wicked,  the  cant¬ 
ing  phrases  of  demagogues  about  “the  laboring  poor.” 
One  might  almost  suspect  the  great  orator  of  speaking 
under  the  inspiration  of  the  philosophy  of  our  Book  of 
Proverbs,  which  dubs  the  arrogant  upstart,  who  dwells 
in  fancied  superiority  over  his  fellow-men,  “the  scorner” 
{lesY^  and,  much  to  his  disadvantage,  contrasts  him  with 
his  betters,  the  humble  men,  the  laborers  {^aniyyim). 
“The  Lord  scorneth  the  scorners  {lesim)  but  giveth  grace 
unto  the  ' aniyyimd'^^ 

“The  rich  man  {'ashir)  is  wise  in  his  own  eyes; 

But  the  poor  {dal)  that  hath  understanding 
searcheth  him  through. 

A  comparison  of  the  texts  relating  to  “the  poor” 
will  show  that  they  have  no  reference  to  mere  paupers, 
but  that  th^  deal  with  substantial  citizens  whose  labors 
contribute  to  the  general  welfare. 

Mere  paupers  are  essentially  different.  They  are 
free  of  obligations.  They  own  nothing,  they  owe  nothing, 
and  are  creditors  to  no  man.  It  follows  that  they  have 

Brown-Driver,  pp.  2,  195,  776,  945. 

“Webster’s  Unabridged,  p.  1012;  Murray’s  (The  Oxford)  English  Dictionary,  vol. 

7,  pp.  1114,  1115.  '“Prov.  21.24.  “Ibid.  3.34.  “Ibid.  28.11. 


100  THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 

no  occasion  to  sue  and  no  man  thinks  of  suing  them.  The 
whole  machinery  of  civil  justice  is  to  them  a  mere  spectacle. 
As  to  being  victims  of  extortion  or  of  oppression  the  thing 
is  impossible.  The  worst  that  can  befall  them  is  to  be 
refused  a  gratuity.  Beyond  that  they  cannot  be  victimized. 

The  texts  that  we  are  considering  deal  with  quite 
another  kind  of  persons.  Though  not  rich  they  are  pos¬ 
sessed  of  some  property,  they  can  borrow  money,  they 
can  sue  and  be  sued  and  they  are  liable  to  pay  public  taxes. 

The  Book  of  Exodus  contains  seven  texts  which  bear 
upon  this  subject. 

The  first,  which  has  been  commented  on  in  an  earlier 
lecture  of  this  series,  relates  to  the  rea'  from  whom  an 
animal  is  hired,  sometimes  to  be  worked  by  its  owner, 
and  sometimp  by  the  borrower  or  by  another  in  his  behalf. 

The  second  refers  to  the  ^ani:  ‘df  thou  lend  money 
to  any  of  my  people,  to  the  'ani  Hmmak,  (the  ^ani  in  thy 
employ)  thou  shalt  not  be  to  him  as  a  creditor,  neither 
shall  ye  lay  upon  him  interest.”®^ 

The  third  refers  once  more  to  the  rea^ :  'df  thou  take 
thy  read's  garment  to  pledge,  thou  shalt  restore  it  unto 
him  by  that  the  sun  goeth  down ;  for  that  is  his  only  cover¬ 
ing,  it  is  his  garment  for  his  skin;  wherein  shall  he  sleep?”^^ 

The  fourth  refers  to  the  dal:  ‘‘Thou  shalt  not  follow 
the  multitude  to  do  evil;  .  .  neither  shalt  thou  favor 

the  dal  in  his  cause”,  while  the  fifth  refers  to  the  ehyon: 

“Thou  shalt  not  divert  justice  (mishpat)  from  thy 
ehyon  in  his  cause. 

The  sixth  also  refers  to  the  ehyon:  The  produce  of 
the  fallow  year  shall  be  for  “the  ehyonim  of  thy  people” 
to  eat,^^  while 

The  seventh  recurs  to  the  dal.  It  provides  for  a  census- 

e^Exod.  22.13.  eUbid.  22.24.  eUbid,  22.25,26. 

'Ubid.  23.3.  esjbid.  23.6. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


101 


tax.  Everyone  numbered  shall  pay  half  a  shekel:  “The 
rich  (he-^ashir)  shall  not  give  more,  and  the  poor  (ha-dal) 
shall  not  give  less.  .  . 

This  group  of  Exodus  texts  is  of  interest  in  various 
aspects.  It  and  the  Jeremiah  group  of  analogous  texts 
are  the  only  ones  which  employ  all  of  the  four  terms  rea\ 
^ani,  dal  and  ehyon. 

What  however  is  more  important  is  the  fact  that  all 
the  members  of  all  the  classes  mentioned  have  either  some 
property  or  some  credit.  The  is  represented  in  one 
text  as  the  owner  of  an  animal  which  he\  hires  out  for 
money,  and  in  another  he  borrows  money,  pledging  his 
garment  for  its  repayment.  He  is  probably  always  poor, 
but  sometimes  very  poor  and  seems  like  the  sakir  to  depend 
on  his  daily  wage  for  his  living.  The  ordinance  requires 
that  this  pledged  garment  shall  be  handed  to  him  at  night 
so  that  he  may  have  a  covering  needed  for  sleep.  Such 
a  loan  must  therefore  finally  rest  on  credit,  that  is,  the 
lender  must  believe  that  the  borrower,  once  having  his 
garment,  will  not  refuse  to  work  to  pay  off  the  debt. 

The  ‘am,  in  one  text,  is  represented  as  being  credited 
with  a  loan  without  a  pledge,  the  creditor  apparently 
believing,  not  only  that  he  will  pay  the  debt,  but  will  also 
pay  interest  thereon.  The  ordinance,  however,  interferes 
with  such  a  contract  by  declaring  the  exaction  of  such 
interest  illegal. 

This  subject  of  interest  for  money  loaned  or  tarhit 
(increase)  for  victuals  loaned  was  an  important  feature 
of  labor  conditions  in  the  ancient  world.  The  wages  or 
other  compensation  must  have  been  so  scanty  that  when¬ 
ever  anything  beyond  the  ordinary  occurred  in  a  laborer’s 
family,  he  was  compelled  to  resort  to  a  loan  to  tide  it  over, 
and  for  this  loan  interest  or  increase  was  exacted.  No 


*9Exocl.  30.15. 


102  THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 

one  but  the  employer  would  lend  the  money  to  these 
laborers  and  there  was  practically  no  opportunity  to  earn 
a  surplus  wherewith  to  pay  it  back.  On  the  contrary,  as 
new  difficulties  arose  there  would  have  to  be  more  loans. 
When  it  is  remembered  that  the  great  Babylonian  empire’s 
normal  rate  of  interest  was  three  times  as  great  as  ours, 
it  will  be  seen  with  what  terrific  rapidity  a  loan  would  be 
doubled.  The  natural  effect  of  such  conditions  was  that 
the  poor  laborer  would  have  to  work  all  his  life  in  the  vain 
effort  to  reduce  a  debt  which  was  steadily  mounting.  He 
would  in  short  be  in  a  position  barely  distinguishable  from 
slavery. 

That  the  ger  were  at  first  in  this  condition  is  fairly 
inferable  from  the  words  of  Moses  in  describing  the  evil 
consequences  which  the  non-observance  of  the  Lord’s 
law  by  Israel  would  entail :  '‘The  ger  that  is  in  thy  midst.  . 
shall  lend  to  thee  and  thou  shalt  not  lend  to  him. ”7"  With 
the  rise  of  Hebrew  working-classes,  the  latter  became  sub¬ 
ject  to  the  same  practices,  and  the  problem  of  curing  the 
evil  became  insistent. 

The  result  was  the  ordinance  which  forbade  the  charg¬ 
ing  of  interest  for  loans  to  the  and  afterwards  to 

any  Israelite  who  had  become  impoverished and  finally 
to  the  sweeping  prohibition  to  take  interest  from  any  one 
but  a  nokri,  an  unmitigated  alien,  a  foreigner. ^3  The 
effect  of  this  was  far-reaching  for  it  relieved  the  ger,  who 
had  by  that  time  either  reached  assimilation  or  approached 
it.  While  this  consequence  is  nowhere  stated  directly, 
it  is  implied  in  the  ordinance  which  forbade  the  charging 
of  interest  to  an  impoverished  Israelite  who  must  be 
treated  as  a  ger  we-toshah  and  no  interest  or  increase  may 
be  asked  of  him.74 

This,  however,  was  not  the  limit  of  its  accomplish- 

70Deut.  28.43,  44.  ”Exod.  22.24.  «Lev.  25.35-37. 

^aOeut.  23.20,  21.  ?<Lev.  25.35-37. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


103 


ment.  It  practically  acted  as  an  obstacle  to  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  commerce,  evidently  on  the  matured  policy  of 
favoring  and  stimulating  agricultural  activity.  Trade 
and  commerce  were  to  be  left  to  the  nokri,  meaning,  most 
probably,  the  Phoenicians,  the  Tyrians.  Isaiah  speaks 
of  Tyre  as  destined  "to  have  commerce  with  all  the  king¬ 
doms  of  the  world”7s  and  Ezekiel  addresses  it  as  "the 
merchant  of  peoples  for  many  isles’’^^  while  Proverbs 
and  Job  both  use  the  word  kena'ani  (Canaanite)  for 

"merchant. "77 

However  discouraging  this  state-policy  of  the  Hebrews 
was  to  mercantile  adventure,  it  was  steadily  adhered  to. 
"Take  no  interest  from  an  Israelite"  was  the  slogan.  Like 
all  forcible  prohibitive  measures  there  were  those  who 
violated  it.  Ezekiel  is  especially  bitter  on  such,  holding 
them  to  be  criminals  of  the  deepest  dye.  7*  While  his 
denunciation  may  have  been  intensified  by  ultra-enthusiasm 
for  the  cause,  it  nevertheless  reflected  general  opinion. 
A  man  entitled  to  respect,  one  "who  shall  sojourn  in  thy 
tabernacle"  is  he  "that  putteth  not  out  his  money  on 
interest.  "79  The  wisdom  of  Proverbs  is  equally  condemna¬ 
tory  :  "He  that  augmenteth  his  substance  by  interest  and  in¬ 
crease,  gathereth  it  for  him  that  is  gracious  to  the  dallim."^^ 

We  must  not  however  permit  our  attention  to  stray 
too  long  from  the  texts  concerning  the  Hebrew  working¬ 
man  which  we  were  considering  when  we  lighted  upon 
the  subject  of  interest  on  loans. 

And  now  to  resume: 

The  dal  is  spoken  of  in  one  text  as  liable  to  a  fixed 
capitation  tax,  like  any  other  citizen  rich  or  poor,  which 
necessarily  involves  the  idea  of  his  having  or  claiming  to 
have  a  valuable  interest  of  some  kind  worth  striving  for. 

The  ehyon  too  is  in  one  text  viewed  as  having  such  a 

’Usa.  23.17.  »«Ezek.  27.3.  ”Prov.  31.24;  Job  40.30. 

’sEzek.  18.13.  «Psalm  15.5.  ««Prov.  28.8. 


104  THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 

case  at  law.  In  the  other  case  he  is  made  to  receive  a 
quantum  at  least  of  the  produce  of  the  fallow  year.  The 
questions  raised  in  this  instance  are  complicated.  First, 
we  must  understand  what  the  fallow  year  is. 

The  first  provision  respecting  it  is  as  follows: 

‘‘Six  years  thou  shalt  sow  thy  land,  and  gather  in 
the  increase  thereof;  but  the  seventh  year  thou  shalt  let 
it  rest  and  lie  fallow  and  the  ehyone  ‘ammeka  shall  eat  and 
what  they  leave  the  beast  of  the  field  shall  eat.  In  like 
manner  thou  shalt  deal  with  thy  vineyard  and  with  thy 
oliveyard.”^^ 

This  curt  paragraph  cannot  possibly  be  the  whole 
law  on  a  subject  so  intricate  and  so  important.  It  would 
seem  to  have  behind  it  a  body  of  traditional  or  oral  law 
familiar  to  all,  and  to  be  stated  as  it  is,  merely  to  introduce 
a  new  feature  to  be  added  to  the  old  common  law. 

There  is,  however,  another  provision,  which  being 
more  extended,  throws  light  upon  the  whole  subject.  It 
is  found  in  Leviticus.  “When  ye  come  into  the  land  which 
I  give  you,  then  shall  the  land  keep  a  Sabbath  unto  the 
Lord.  Six  years  thou  shalt  sow  thy  field,  and  six  years 
thou  shalt  prune  thy  vineyard,  and  gather  in  the  produce 
thereof.  But  in  the  seventh  year  shall  be  a  Sabbath  of 
solemn  rest  (Shabbat  Shabbaton)  for  the  land,  a  Sabbath 
unto  the  Lord;  thou  shalt  neither  sow  thy  field,  nor  prune 
thy  vineyard.  That  which  groweth  of  itself  of  thy  harvest 
thou  shalt  not  reap,  and  the  grapes  of  thy  undressed  vine 
thou  shalt  not  gather;  it  shall  be  a  year  of  solemn  rest 
{Shenat  Shabbaton)  for  the  land.  And  the  Sabbath-produce 
of  the  land  shall  be  food  for  you:  for  thee,  and  for  thy  ^ebei 
and  for  thy  amah  and  for  thy  sakir  and  for  thy  toshab  living 
^immak  (in  thy  employ) ;  and  for  thy  cattle  and  for  the  beasts 
that  are  in  thy  land,  shall  all  the  increase  thereof  be  for  food.” 


aiExod.  23.10,  11. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


105 


“And  the  land  shall  yield  her  fruit,  and  ye  shall  eat 
until  ye  have  enough,  and  dwell  therein  in  safety.  And 
if  ye  shall  say:  ‘What  shall  we  eat  the  seventh  year?  behold, 
we  may  not  sow,  nor  gather  in  our  increase;’  then  I  will 
command  My  blessing  upon  you  in  the  sixth  year,  and 
it  shall  bring  forth  produce  for  the  three  years.  And  ye 
shall  sow  the  eighth  year,  and  eat  of  the  produce,  the  old 
store  (yashan) ;  until  the  ninth  year,  until  her  produce 
come  in,  ye  shall  eat  the  old  store. 

That  these  two  provisions  refer  to  the  same  institu¬ 
tion  is,  of  course,  obvious;  but  there  are  noteworthy 
distinctions. 

In  the  former,  the  year  is  not  given  a  name.  There 
is  no  substantive  for  it.  It  is,  however,  characterized  by 
the  verbs  shamat  (to  let  it  rest)  and  natash  (lie  fallow). 
From  this  verb  shamat  is  derived  the  name  for  the  release- 
year  {shenat  ha-shemittah)  of  Deuteronomy.®**  This  release- 
year,  being  the  same  seventh  year,  is  closely  related  to 
the  fallow-year  of  Exodus  and  to  the  Sabbatical  year  of 
Leviticus  though  it  does  not  speak  of  the  land.  It  was, 
what  we  call,  a  statute  of  limitations.  These  are  its  pro¬ 
visions: 

“At  the  end  of  every  seven  years  thou  shalt  make  a 
release  {shemittah).  And  this  is  the  manner  of  the  release: 
every  creditor  {ba‘al  mashsheh  yado)  shall  release  that 
which  he  hath  lent  unto  his  rea' \  he  shall  not  exact  it  of 
his  rea^  and  his  ah  (brother) ;  because  the  Lord’s  release 
hath  been  proclaimed.  Of  a  nokri  thou  mayest  exact  it, 
but  whatsoever  of  thine  is  with  thy  brother  thy  hand  shall 
release  unless  the  time  should  come  when  there  shall  be 
no  ebyon  among  you.  .  .’’®4 

The  close  relation  between  these  three  sorts  of  years 
was  apparent  to  Nehemiah  when  a  covenant  was  entered 

82Lev.  25.2-7,  19-22.  “Deut.  15.9;  31.10.  »meut.  15.1-4. 


106  THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 

into  to  observe  the  ancient  laws  among  which  were  “the 
fallow  year  and  the  release  year”  {we-nittosh  et  ha-shanah 
ha-shehi'it  u-mashsha  kol~yad)}^  Note  here  the  use  of 
natash  just  as  in  the  fallow-year  provision  of  Exodus^ 
and  the  conjunction  with  the  release  of  debts  {mashsha 
kol-yad),  as  in  the  limitation  law  of  Deuteronomy. 

From  the  consideration  of  the  three  groups  of  texts 
the  following  inference  may  be  drawn: 

a)  The  ancient  inhabitants  of  Canaan  whom  Israel 
dispossessed,  had  probably  the  custom  of  the  fallow  in 
every  seventh  year. 

b)  This  custom  was,  after  the  Conquest,  continued 
by  the  Hebrews. 

c)  As  was  common  in  the  ancient  world,  the  Canaan^ 
ite  fallow  was  probably  associated  with  pagan  ideas  and 
pagan  practices. 

d)  The  Exodus  text  contained  no  reference  to  religion 
but  the  Leviticus  text  was  an  essential  portion  of  it,  the 
two  together  being  one  complete  ordinance.  This  Levitical 
section  gave  to  the  fallow  year  a  specifically  Hebrew 
religious  character  and  even  a  specifically  Hebrew  religious 
name.  Sabbatical  year.  It  also  supplied  the  data  which 
were  not  expressed  in  the  Exodus  portion,  namely  a  com¬ 
plete  list  of  those  entitled  to  eat  of  the  fallow-year’s  pro¬ 
duce,  and  specific  directions  as  to  the  mode  in  which  thrift 
should  be  exercised  in  order  to  avoid  scarcity. 

There  were  naturally  to  be  store-houses — granaries. 
That  the  Hebrews  were  familiar  with  this  mode  appears 
plainly  from  the  narrative  of  Joseph’s  advice  to  Pharaoh 
in  Egypt. In  these  granaries  the  surplus  portion  of  the 
crop  of  the  sixth  year  was  to  be  stored,  which,  with  the 
natural  produce  of  the  seventh  year,  combined  with  such 

*«Neh.  10.32. 

*®Gen.  41.56.  Though  the  Masoretic  text  of  this  verse  may  be  somewhat  defective,, 
there  is  enough  in  it  when  combined  with  the  Septuagint  version  to  make  the  meaning 
unmistakable. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL  107 


of  the  crop  of  the  eighth  year  as  would  be  available  for 
consumption  in  that  year,  would  suffice  to  ward  off  suffering 
in  the  Sabbatical  year  and  the  year  following  it.  By  the 
ninth  year,  the  bulk  of  the  eighth  year  crop  would  be  on 
hand  and  all  danger  would  be  past. 

As  regards  the  beneficiaries  of  the  seventh  year  produce 
it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  the  Levitical  section  specifies 
the  farmer,  his  family,  his  slaves  and  his  Canaanite  laborers 
the  sakir  and  the  toshab.  When  the  Hebrews  had  developed 
a  class  or  classes  of  farm-laborers  it  was  necessary  to  add 
them  to  the  list  and  they  were  accordingly  added  as  a 
new  feature  of  the  old  common  law,  ebyone  ‘ammeka,  the 
ebyonim  of  thy  people. The  word  ebyonim  is  here  used 
as  a  general  term  including  all  the  Hebrew  farm-laborers 
by  whatever  names  their  classes  might  on  other  occasions 
be  known. 

After  this  rather  prolix  treatment  of  the  Exodus 
texts  we  may  now  pass  on  to  the  Levitical  texts. 

Of  these  there  are  but  five,  one  referring  to  the  rea\ 
two  to  the  ^ani  and  two  to  the  dal.  The  ebyon  is  not  men¬ 
tioned  in  any  of  them. 

The  first,  the  text  is  as  follows: 

“Thou  shalt  not  oppress  thy  rea'  nor  rob  him,  {lo 
ta‘ashok  et  re‘eka  we-lo  tigzol) ;  the  wages  of  a  sakir  shall 
not  abide  with  thee  all  night  until  the  morning.”®^  Here 
we  have  the  rea'  tied  to  the  sakir,  the  wage-earner,  and 
moreover  we  have  the  prohibition  against  oppressing  or 
robbing  him  in  about  the  same  terms  as  similar  ordinances 
against  abusing  other  (non-Hebrew)  workers  are  worded. 

The  ^ani  texts  are  these: 

The  first  of  them  prohibits  reaping  “the  corner  of 
thy  field’'  and  gathering  “the  gleaning  of  thy  harvest” 
as  also  the  gleaning  of  “thy  vineyard;”  “thou  shalt 

*’Exod.  23.11.  88Lev.  19.13;  Dent.  24.15. 


108  THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 

leave  them  for  the  'ani  and  for  the  ger." 

The  other  of  them  provides:  “When  ye  reap  the 
harvest  of  your  land,  thou  shalt  not  wholly  reap  the  corner 
of  thy  field,  neither  shalt  thou  gather  the  gleaning  of  thy 
harvest;  thou  shalt  leave  them  for  the  'ani  and  for  the 

ger:^9o 

The  probability  is  that  the  term  ger  in  these  texts 
is  used  in  a  sense  large  enough  to  include  the  yatoni  and 
the  almanah  who  are  in  fact  part  of  the  ger. 

These  texts  further  show  that  here,  as  in  the  Exodus 
texts,  the  Hebrew  ‘ani  had  been  recognized  as  a  class. 
When  the  analogous  Deuteronomic  ordinances  were 
enacted,  the  beneficiaries  were  merely  the  ger,  the  yatom 
and  the  almanah.^^  The  ‘ani  workers  had  not  yet  become 
of  sufficient  importance  to  be  arrayed  alongside  of  the 
classes  of  non-Hebrew  workers. 

The  dal  texts  are  these: 

The  first  provides  for  an  abatement  of  the  offering 
demanded  of  the  leper  who  is  to  be  cured,  “if  he  be  dal 
and  his  means  suffice  not.”^^ 

The  significance  of  this  text  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  dal 
is  not  released  from  the  payment  of  a  proper  tax,  although 
the  amount  thereof  is  reduced  to  suit  his  circumstances. 

The  other  dal  text  is  a  substantial  reiteration  of  the 

Exodus  texts  which  dwell  on  the  duty  to  do  justice  without 
fear  or  favor: 

“Ye  shall  do  no  unrighteousness  in  judgment  {rnish- 
pat) ;  thou  shalt  not  respect  the  person  of  the  dal,  nor 
favor  the  person  of  the  mighty  (gadol) ;  in  righteousness 
shalt  thou  judge  thy  neighbor.”®^ 

The  only  difference  is  in  the  wording  and  in  the  use 
of  the  dal  and  ehyon  synonymously  in  the  Exodus  passages. 

The  Book  of  Numbers  contains  no  texts  having  in 

8»Lev.  19.9,  10.  90Ibid.  23.  22.  siDeut.  24.19,  20.  21. 

»2T.ev.  14.21.  «ibicl.  19.15. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


109 


them  any  of  the  words  we  are  considering.  Deuteronomy, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  rich  in  them,  though  it  does  not 
mention  the  dal. 

The  rea*  texts  in  Deuteronomy  are  these: 

‘When  thou  dost  lend  thy  rea'  any  manner  of  loan, 
thou  shalt  not  go  into  his  house  to  fetch  his  pledge.  Thou 
shalt  stand  without,  and  the  man  to  whom  thou  dost  lend 
shall  bring  forth  the  pledge  without  unto  thee.  And  if 
he  be  an  'ani,  thou  shalt  not  sleep  with  his  pledge;  thou 
shalt  surely  restore  to  him  the  pledge  when  the  sun  goeth 
down,  that  he  may  sleep  in  his  garment,  and  bless  thee; 
and  it  shall  be  righteousness  unto  thee  before  the  Lord 
thy  God.”^^ 

Hard  upon  this  Deuteronomy  text  follows  one  relating 
to  the  sakir,  'ani  we~ehyon. 

The  ^ani-ehyon  texts  are  as  follows: 

“The  ehyon  shall  never  cease  out  of  the  land;  therefore 
I  command  thee,  saying:  ‘Thou  shalt  surely  open  thy 
hand  unto  thy  brother,  unto  thy  'ani  and  to  thy  ehyon 
in  thy  land.’ 

“Thou  shalt  not  oppress  {lo-ta‘ashok)  a  sakir  'ani 
we-ehyon  among  thy  brethren  or  among  thy  ger  that  are 
within  thy  land  within  thy  gates  {bi-she  areka) .  In  the 
same  day  thou  shalt  give  him  his  hire,  neither  shall  the 
sun  go  down  upon  it;  for  he  is  'ani  and  setteth  his  heart 
upon  it.  .  . 

There  appears  to  be  no  distinction  between  the  ‘ani 
and  the  ehyon  in  these  texts.  Moreover  they  appear  to 
be  used  adjectively  at  times,  the  main  thought  being  that 
persons  well  off  in  this  world’s  goods  should  be  kind  and 
helpful  to  the  poorer  classes.  The  only  workmen  who  are 
distinctly  conceived  as  a  class  are  the  sakir,  the  laborers 

•  "meut.  24.10-13.  «Ubid.  15.11.  sUbid.  24.12,  15. 


110 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


for  daily  wage  The  others  seem  to  be  visualized  in  the 
lump  as  “the  poor.” 

The  prophets  are  not  reticent  on  the  general  subject. 

Amos  denouncing  Israel  charges  that  they  sell  the 
ehyon  for  a  pair  of  shoes, that  they  pant  after  the  dust 
of  the  earth  on  the  head  of  the  dallim  and  pervert  the 
right  of  the  ‘anawim^^  that  they  oppress  the  dallim  (ha- 
'oshekot  dallim)  and  crush  the  ehyonimy^  that  they  trample 
upon  the  dal  and  take  from  him  exactions  of  wheat, 
that  they  turn  aside  the  ehyonim  in  the  gate  (i.e.  deny 
them  justice  in  the  court)  ;ioi  they  swallow  the  ehyon  and 
destroy  the  'anawim  of  the  land^"^  and  seek  to  buy  the 
dallim  for  silver  and  the  ehyon  for  a  pair  of  shoes. 

The  burthen  of  his  complaint  is  that  the  nobility 
and  gentry  of  the  land  are  unmindful  of  the  common 
people’s  welfare,  look  upon  the  latter  as  mere  instruments 
of  their  pleasure  and  will  certainly  encounter  a  deserved 
doom.  With  him  the  ‘am,  and  the  ehyon  are  the  working 
masses  of  the  country  while  the  dal  is  the  unsuccessful 
farmer. 

Isaiah  is  not  a  whit  more  complaisant  to  Judah  than 
Amos  to  Israel.  He  charges  that  the  elders  and  the  princes 
have  the  spoil  (gezelat)  of  the  ‘am  in  their  houses,  that 
they  crush  the  people  and  “grind  the  face  of  the  ‘amyyfm.”^"^ 

And,  referring  either  to  Judah  or  to  Israel  or  to  both 
he  denounces  “woe  unto  them  that  decree  unrighteous 
decrees  and  to  the  writers  that  write  iniquity;  to  turn 
aside  the  dallim  from  justice  {din)  and  to  rob  of  their  right 
(ligzol  mishpat)  the  'aniyyim  of  my  people”.  . 

Even  when  he  pictures  an  ideal  government  for  the 
future  he  cannot  forbear  a  thrust  against  the  mean  magnates 
of  the  present,  the  wicked  ‘am  and  the  arrogant  les,  who 

»7Amos  2.6.  98Ibid.  2.7.  »9Ibid.  4.1.  looibid.  5.11. 

loilbid,  5.12.  loUbid.  8.4.  loUbid.  8.6.  ^Usa.  3.14,  15. 

loUbid.  10.1,  2. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


111 


will  in  better  times  disappear  with  the  consequence  that 
the  ^anawim  shall  rejoice  in  the  Lord  and  the  ehyonim  shall 
exult  in  the  Holy  One  of  Israel. 

When  a  true  Davidic  type  of  king  shall  be  restored, 
“with  righteousness  shall  he  judge  the  dallim  and  decide 
with  equity  for  the  ^anawim  of  the  land.”^“7 

Jeremiah,  too,  berates  the  magnates  of  Judah:  “They 
do  not  award  justice  {mishpat)  to  the  ehyonimd^^°^ 

“Do  justice  between  a  man  and  his  rea\  oppress  not 
ger,  yatom  or  almanahd'^^'^ 

He  bitterly  denounces  the  King  Jehoiakim: 

“Woe  unto  him  that  buildeth  his  palace  by  unright¬ 
eousness. 

And  his  chambers  by  wrong. 

That  useth  his  read's  service  for  naught 
And  giveth  him  no  wage  for  it.““<^ 

And  contrasts  his  corruption  with  the  righteousness 
of  his  father  King  Josiah:  “He  judged  the  cause  of  ‘ani 
and  ebyon,  and  it  went  well  with  him.““^ 

When  Babylonian  supremacy  made  Zedekiah  the 
last  king  of  Judah  before  the  Captivity,  a  wave  of  contri¬ 
tion  seems  to  have  swept  over  the  land  because  of  the 
breach  of  the  laws  relating  to  Hebrew  laborers,  slave  and 
free.  Under  its  influence  there  was  enacted  a  solemn  resolu¬ 
tion  to  obey  these  laws  in  future.  When  the  peril  under 
which  that  action  was  taken  seemed  past,  the  old  abuses 
were  revived.  This  called  forth  Jeremiah’s  denunciation: 

“Thus  saith  the  Lord:  Ye  have  not  hearkened  unto 
Me  to  proclaim  liberty,  every  man  to  his  brother  and 
every  man  to  his  and  therefore  “I  will  give  them 

into  the  hand  of  their  enemies  and  into  hand  of  them  that 
seek  their  life.’’"^ 

Ezekiel  enumerates  among  his  vicious  criminals  him 

“«Ibid.  29.19,  20.  i^Usa.  11.4.  w^er.  5.28.  7.5,  6. 

“Hbid.  22.13.  “‘Ibid.  22.16.  “‘Ibid.  34.17.  “Ubid.  34.20. 


112  THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 

that  “hath  wronged  (honaJi)  the  ‘ani  and  the  ehyon,  taken 
by  robbery  (gezelot  and  indicts  the  princes  of 

Israel,  for  having  committed  grave  crimes,  among  them 
having  gained  from  their  re  im  by  extortion  or  oppression 
{he-osheky^^  which  profit  he  here  stigmatizes  as  plunder 
{besa‘)j  just  as  in  the  text  before  quoted  he  calls  it  robbery. 

Enlarging  upon  his  theme,  he  inveighs  against  the 
'am  ha-ares  for  similar  offences,  which  he  characterizes 
as  oppression and  robbery  (gazel).  The  crimes 
charged  are  “having  wronged  (honu)  ‘ani  and  ehyon  and 
oppressed  the  ger  contrary  to  law.”*" 

Zechariah  speaks  in  the  same  strain: 

“Thus  hath  the  Lord  of  hosts  spoken,  saying.  Execute 
true  justice,  show  mercy  and  compassion  every  man  to 
his  brother.  Oppress  not  (al-ta'ashoku)  almanah,  yatom, 
ger  or  'ani.  .  .”“7 

Malachi  while  speaking  on  the  same  subject  makes 
no  mention  of  a  specific  class  of  Hebrew  laborers.  While 
he  warns  against  unfair  treatment  of  sakir,  almanah, 
yatom  or  ger,  he  does  not  mention  rea\  ^ani,  dal  or  ehyon. 
As  he  probably  lived  and  worked  during  or  shortly  after 
the  advent  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  the  inference  is  not 
remote  that  in  the  restored  Commonwealth,  the  Hebrew 
laborers  held  a  position  superior  to  that  which  had  been 
theirs  before  the  Captivity.  The  social  conflict,  between 
the  nobility  and  gentry  on  the  one  hand  and  the  laborers 
and  the  less  successful  farmers  on  the  other,  had  been  greatly 
reduced.  The  fifth  chapter  of  Nehemiah  seems  to  confirm 
this  view."® 

The  Proverbs  too  throw  light  on  our  subject: 

“The  oppressor  {'oshek)  of  the  dal  blasphemeth  his 
Maker, 

But  he  that  is  gracious  to  the  ehyon  honoreth  Him.”"^ 

iKEzek.  18.2.  nUbid.  22.12,  13.  nUbid.  22.29.  “^Zech.  7.9,  10. 

iifiNeh.  5.1-13.  “*Prov.  14.31. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


113 


''Say  not  unto  thy  rea\  Go  and  come  again, 
To-morrow  I  will  give — when  thou  hast  it  by  thee.”^^° 
"He  that  is  gracious  to  the  dal  lendeth  unto  the 
Lord.”'"^ 

"He  that  oppresseth  the  dal  for  gain 
Will  pay  to  the  rich  (‘ashir)  and  come  to  want."“^ 
"Do  not  rob  (al-tigzol)  the  dal,  because  he  is  dal, 

Nor  crush  the  ^ani  in  the  gate”  (at  the  local  court 
sitting  in  the  gate).^^^ 

"The  king  that  faithfully  judges  the  dallim 
His  throne  shall  be  established  forever. 

"There  is  a  generation  whose  teeth  are  as  swords, 
and  their  great  teeth  as  knives, 

To  devour  the  ^aniyyim  from  off  the  earth,  and  the 
ebyonim  from  among  men.”^^^ 

"Open  thy  mouth,  judge  righteously. 

The  cause  of  'ani  and  ehyond'^^^ 

Job  too  describes  transgressors  of  the  kind  we  have 
been  considering: 

"They  drive  away  the  ass  of  the  yetomim. 

They  take  the  almanald s  ox  for  a  pledge. 

They  turn  the  ebyonim  from  their  right. 

The  'anawim  of  the  land  hide  themselves  together. 
"They  take  pledge  from  the  'ani 
So  that  they  go  about  naked,  without  clothing. 
Carry  sheaves  and  remain  hungry, 

Tread  winepresses  and  suffer  thirst. 

The  conclusion  to  be  derived  from  the  texts  is  that 
the  various  names  for  the  Hebrew  poorer  classes,  did  not 
originally  suggest  any  great  disparity  among  them. 
Their  multiplicity  may  have  been  due  to  local,  to  temporary 
or  to  dialectal  causes. 

i20Ibid.  3.28.  is'Prov.  19.17.  i^Ubid.  22.16.  22.22. 

’^nbid.  29.14.  i^Ibid.  30.14.  ^-’Ubid.  31.9.  i27job  24.3,  4. 

i^nbid.  24.9.  10.  11. 


114  THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 

The  notion  that  they  were  all  recipients  of  charity 
is  old  and  wide-spread.  Indeed,  in  one  instance  A.  V.  goes 
so  far  as  to  translate  ehyon,  straightway,  by  beggar. 

My  hope  is  that  such  ideas  may  be  finally  dismissed. 

Actual  beggars  or  actual  beggary  is  perhaps  nowhere 

mentioned  in  the  Bible.  The  two  strongest  passages 
referring  to  it  are  to  be  found  in  the  Psalms.  They  are 
both  utterances  of  the  lowly  spirit. 

The  first  is  the  thirty-seventh  Psalm. 

It  rejoices  in  the  prospect  that  the  'anawim  shall  inherit 
the  land  and  that  the  wicked  who  design  to  depress  the 
*ani  we-ehyon  shall  be  baffled, and  sums  up  experience  in 
this  hopeful  strain:  “I  have  been  young  and  now  I  am 
old,  yet  have  I  not  seen  the  innocent  forsaken  nor  his  seed 
begging  bread  {mebakkesh  lehem).^^^ 

The  second  is  the  one  hundred  and  ninth  Psalm.  The 
Psalmist  is  represented  as  dwelling  on  the  malignity  of 
his  enemies  and  invoking  against  them  and  their  progeny  the 
sternest  retributive  justice:  “Let  his  children  be  vagabonds 
and  beg.  .  {we-shielu).^^^  Such  a  fate  he  demands  for  the 
powerful  oppressor  who  “persecuted  the  'ani  we-ehyon.''^^^ 

While  the  picture  of  beggary,  present  in  the  mind  of 
the  Psalmist,  must  have  been  derived  from  life,  yet  it 
presents  no  actual  condition,  but  is  in  both  cases  an  imagina¬ 
tive  suggestion.  Certain  it  is  that  the  'ani  we-ehyon  whose 
voice  we  hear  has  nothing  in  common  with  this  hypothetical 
beggar  nor  with  any  actual  beggar.  He  may,  it  is  true,  be 
subject  to  oppression  by  his  employer,  but  he  can  have 
recourse  to  the  Courts  and  he  will  obtain  justice.  Indeed 
there  is  nothing  more  admirable  in  an}^  system  of  juris¬ 
prudence  than  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  Mosaic  law 
to  govern  the  administration  of  justice. 

iMl  Sam.  2.8.  iJopsalm  37.11.  iJUbid.  37.14.  “Ubid.  37.25. 
i“Ibid.  109.10.  i34ibid.  109.16. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


115 


The  charge  of  Moses  to  the  judges  was: 

“Hear  the  causes  between  your  brethren,  and  judge 
righteously  between  a  man  and  his  brother,  and  between 
a  man  and  his  ger.  Ye  shall  not  respect  persons  in  judg¬ 
ment,  ye  shall  hear  the  small  (katon)  and  the  great  (gadol) 
alike;  ye  shall  fear  no  man,  for  justice  (mishpat)  is  God’s. 

An  important  Exodus  passage  indicates  the  danger 
that  tribunals  might  be  influenced  by  popular  prejudice, 
the  voice  of  the  crowd. 

“Thou  shalt  not  follow  the  crowd  (jahhim)  to  do 
evil,  ...  to  pervert  justice;’’  and  do  not  favor  the  dal 
in  his  cause  (be-ribo).  Thou  shalt  not  wrest  the  judgment 
{mishpat)  of  thy  ebyon  in  his  cause. 

“Ye  shall  do  no  unrighteousness  in  judgment  {mishpat) ; 
thou  shalt  not  favor  the  dal  or  the  gadol;  but  in  righteous¬ 
ness  shalt  thou  judge  thy  neighbor  {'amiteka)^^^’^ 

“Thou  shalt  not  wrest  judgment,  thou  shalt  not 
respect  persons,  nor  take  a  gift.  . 

“Thou  shalt  not  pervert  the  justice  due  to  the  ger.  . 

“Cursed  be  he  that  perverteth  the  justice  due  to 
the  ger.  . 

Isaiah,  denouncing  injustice  in  the  courts  declares 
that  unrighteous  judges  “turn  aside  the  dallim  from  justice 
{din)  and  rob  {gazal),  ‘aniyyim  of  their  right  {mishpat).  . 

Jeremiah  too  declares  of  such  that  they  do  not  judge 
the  right  {mishpat)  of  ebyonim.''^^^ 

Whatever  the  origin  of  the  four  names  for  the  Hebrew 
poorer  classes,  it  would  appear  that  in  the  event  only  one 
of  them  developed  a  specific  and  peculiar  meaning.  This 
was  the  dal. 

Just  as  the  landless  Canaanites  had  become  the  sakir 
and  those  who  had  been  landholders  before  the  Conquest 
had  become  the  toshab,  so  there  was  a  somewhat  similar 

i»‘Deut.  1.16,  17.  n9Exod.  23.2,  3,  6.  ^^Lev.  19.15.  i^sDeut.  16.19. 

i«Ibid.  24.17.  i«Ibid.  27.19.  i«Isa.  10.2.  ««Jer.  5.28. 


116  THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 

movement  among  the  Hebrews.  The  landless  ones  became 
in  general,  the  ehyon,  the  'ani,  the  rea'  and  later  on  the 
sakir,  while  the  landholders  who  were  in  danger  of  losing 
their  farms  or  who  had  actually  lost  them  became  the  dal. 

Amos,  in  the  eighth  century  b.c.,  denouncing  the 
Northern  government  (Israel)  declares  that  “it  tramples 
upon  the  daV  taking  from  him  unreasonable  proportions 
of  his  wheat,  and  rails  at  the  luxury  and  extravagance  of 
those  who  thus  abused  their  taxing-power.  This  burden¬ 
some  wheat- tax  he  calls  mas' at-har 

That  even  before  Amos,  there  were  unsuccessful  land- 
owners  appears  incidentally  in  the  narrative  which  tells 
of  the  selection  of  Gideon  to  be  the  shofet  of  Israel.  When 
the  deputation  waited  on  him  to  tender  him  the  great 
office,  he  was  found  threshing  wheat.  In  his  reply  he 
modestly  deprecated  his  fitness  for  the  post  describing  his 
family  or  clan  as  dal  and  himself  as  its  humblest  member. 

The  dal  farmers  persisted  as  a  class  until  the  downfall 
of  the  Judean  Kingdom  (586  b.c.)  and  even  then,  they 
were  not  deported  but  were  favored  by  the  Babylonian 
Conquerors. 

The  record,  after  reciting  the  classes  that  were  de¬ 
ported,  adds:  None  remained  save  the  dallat  ^am  ha- 
ares^^^  or  as  they  are  otherwise  called  dallat-ha-ares ,  who 
were  left  to  be  vine-dressers  and  husbandmen. ^^6 

The  policy  of  the  Babylonian  conquerors  was  to 
deport  the  magnates  and  the  powerful,  but  to  leave  the 
dal  at  home  to  continue  the  cultivation  of  the  land. 

And  now  to  sum  up  the  result  of  our  inquiries: 

At  the  final  conquest  of  Canaan,  the  Hebrews  took 
the  land  of  the  Canaanites  and  divided  it  among  them¬ 
selves,  retaining  the  previous  inhabitants  as  workingmen. 
Most  of  these  remained  settled  on  the  land  as  a  peasant 

i«Amos  5.11.  Jud.  6.15.  Kings  24.14. 

i*«Ibid.  25.12;  Jer.  52.15,  16. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


117 


population  and  these  were  called  toshabim,  while  those 
who  were  not  so  settled  worked  for  daily  wage  as  sekirim. 
The  general  term  applied  to  both  classes  was  ger  (literally, 
stranger).  When  one  of  these  gerim  died  his  family  were 
not  driven  out  of  their  humble  cottage,  but  remained  on 
the  land  and  worked  on  it.  Hence  the  locution  ger^  yatom 
we-almanah  which  occurs  so  frequently  as  descriptive  of 
the  conquered  population. 

This  word  ger  has  undergone  curious  transformations. 
At  first  and  for  many  centuries  it  simply  meant  stranger. 
When  Abraham,  in  addressing  the  Hittites,  called  himself 
a  ger  he  used  the  word  in  that  sense.  After  the  Hebrew 
conquest  had  subjected  the  Canaanites,  it  acquired  the 
additional  meaning  of  laborer,  and  this  it  retained  during 
the  whole  period  covered  by  the  Biblical  writings,  even 
to  a  time  when  the  ger  had  been  thoroughly  absorbed  in 
Israel  and  the  distinction  had  no  application  in  real  life. 
The  Book  of  Proverbs  so  replete  with  keen  observation 
and  profound  reflection  on  social  conditions  never  mentions 
the  word,  while  it  speaks  abundantly  of  the  ebyon,  the 
dal  and  the  ^ani  classes  of  workingmen.  When  it  was 
written,  say  three  hundred  years  before  the  present  era, 
the  descendants  of  the  ger  were  undoubtedly  classed  with 
the  Hebrew  workingmen  and  were  not  known  by  any  other 
name.  The  only  way  in  which  the  word  survived  was 
that  in  consequence  of  the  historical  facts,  it  gradually 
and  insensibly  came  to  mean  a  proselyte.  It  had  acquired 
that  meaning  more  than  two  thousand  years  ago  when  the 
Greek  translation  of  the  Bible,  called  the  Septuagint,  was 
made.  Wherever  the  text  refers  to  the  geri?n  we  have  been 
considering^  the  Greek  version,  without  much  regard  for 
historic  probability,  but  evidently  in  accord  with  current 
speech,  renders  proselyte.  Its  earliest  use  in  that  sense 
in  any  Hebrew  writing  that  I  know  of,  is  in  the  Mishnah, 


118  THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 

written  probably  about  the  year  200  of  our  present  era, 
though  it  had  probably  been  used  in  common  speech  for 
centuries  before,  to  designate  individuals  of  foreign  stock 
coming  in  to  adopt  the  religion  of  the  Hebrews.  That 
meaning  it  retains  to  this  day.  It  is  a  curious  philological 
phenomenon  that  while  this  use  persisted  in  speech,  it 
was  eschewed  in  Hebrew  writing.  When,  in  the  Book  of 
Esther  (written  perhaps  contemporaneously  with  the 
Septuagint)  such  proselytes  are  spoken  of,  they  were  not 

4 

called  ger  nor  indeed  by  any  other  substantive.  They 
were  described  by  the  action  taken  by  them,  for  which 
purpose  the  Hebrew  writer  invented  a  new  reflexive  verb. 
There  is  but  one  instance  of  its  use:  Esther  8.17,  and  this 
in  the  form  of  a  participle:  mityahadim  or  as  we  might 
say  “judaizing  themselves.” 

Closely  associated  with  this  ger  in  the  records,  is 
another  class  called  the  ezrah.  They  are  not  mentioned 
as  being  either  workmen  or  as  belonging  to  the  poor. 
Their  position  as  regards  civil  status  seems  to  be  on  a 
parity  with  that  of  the  whole  body  of  Israel.  The  only 
difference  is  in  religious  matters.  From  what  the  texts 
tell  us  we  may  fairly  infer  that  they  were  a  large  and  com¬ 
pact  body  of  voluntary  proselytes,  and  the  only  clue  to 
such  a  movement  leads  us  back  to  the  very  beginning  of 
the  Hebrew  nation.  At  the  Exodus  from  Egypt,  a  con¬ 
siderable  body  of  Egyptian  natives  attached  themselves 
to  Israel  with  the  determination  to  become  a  part  thereof 
and  to  share  its  fate.  The  records  give  us  two  contemptuous 
names  for  them :  'ereh  rah  and  asafsuf,  both  fairly  rendered 
by  “the  rabble.”  That  there  should  have  been  no  right 
name  for  them  seems  impossible.  When  we  reflect  that 
the  Israelites  looked  upon  themselves  as  gerim  in  Egypt, 
the  probability  that  by  way  of  contrast  they  called  these 
Egyptians  ‘‘natives”  seems  reasonable.  In  their  language. 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL  119 


ezrah  meant  native  and  the  conclusion  is  easy  to  reach 
that  this  body  of  proselytes  was  called  ezrah. 

From  the  texts  it  plainly  appears  that  their  reception 
was  cold.  Willing  as  they  undoubtedly  were  to  assume 
all  the  duties,  civil,  military  and  religious,  imposed  on 
Israelites,  the  latter  would  not  at  once  admit  them  to  full 
religious  equality,  but  insisted  that  they  should  rise  to 
that  height,  by  degrees.  Notwithstanding  this  repugnance, 
their  full  assimilation  to  Israel  must  have  been  achieved 
at  a  very  early  period,  since  they  were  held  up  to  the  ger- 
as  an  example  and  a  model  whom  they  should  imitate 
and  might  hope  to  reach.  It  is  significant  that  none  of  the 
prophets  ever  mentions  the  ezrah  save  only  Ezekiel  in  the 
course  of  a  vision  replete  with  learned  historical  memories. 

The  stages  of  the  advance  of  the  ezrah  and  of  the  ger 
to  full  membership  in  Israel,  I  have  endeavored  to  sketch. 
At  all  events,  the  end  was  reached,  though  the  memory 
of  their  different  origins  was  not  quite  effaced  for  centuries. 
To  the  great  body  of  Canaanite  workmen  and  their  progeny, 
there  was  finally  added  a  large  Hebrew  element. 

The  dream  of  an  equality  of  property  and  of  prosperity 
indulged  in  by  the  conquerors  was,  naturally,  not  realized. 

Whether  there  was  a  piece  of  land  assigned  to  every 
householder  is  doubtful.  There  were  probably  many  who 
never  received  any.  But  even  if  this  were  not  so,  there 
would  be  not  only  differences  of  soil  and  climate  but  dis¬ 
parity  of  ability  and  efficiency,  both  causes  of  varying 
results.  Despite  the  best  intentions,  some  grew  rich  and 
others  slid  into  poverty. 

It  was  inevitable  that  classes  of  Hebrew  laborers 
would  be  formed,  and  to  these  were  given  names:  ehyon^ 
'ani,  dal  and  finally  rea'.  Of  all  these  classes  only  one, 
the  dal  came  to  mean  the  unsuccessful  farmer,  who,  though 
he  did  not  prosper,  was  still  able  to  hold  on  to  his  land 


120  THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 

cultivating  it  by  the  aid  of  his  wife  and  children  and  in 
many  cases  supplementing  its  insufficient  returns  by  work¬ 
ing  part  of  the  time  for  others,  and  receiving  wages  therefor. 

Needless  to  say,  extreme  prosperity  in  some  raised  a 
brood  of  greedy  and  avaricious  men  ready  to  tyrannize 
over  their  poorly-endowed  neighbors. 

The  whole  Biblical  literature  shows  an  age-long  struggle 
against  this  class  and  in  behalf  of  the  poor,  and  establishes 
the  fact  that  the  movement  in  favor  of  the  latter  was 
largely  successful,  so  that  not  only  the  Hebrew  laborer 
but  the  ger  were  greatly  improved  in  condition,  more 
especially  after  the  Return  from  Babylon. 

Classes  of  beggars  or  paupers  there  were  none.  The 
frequent  use  of  words  denoting  poverty  meant  no  more 
than  to  mark  out  the  line  between  the  rich  and  those  who 
had  to  earn  their  living  by  manual  labor. 

In  a  word  the  stranger  and  the  poor  of  our  versions, 
were  both  important  and  useful  constituent  parts  of  the 
body  of  Israel,  and  were,  in  the  last  analysis,  neither  strange 
nor  poor,  because  they  fully  shared  in  the  intimate  life  of 
the  community  and  earned  an  honest  living  by  their  labor 
in  its  behalf. 

So  that  we  may  fairly  say  that  a  great  movement  for 
the  protection  and  improvement  of  the  laboring  mass 
was  initiated  in  Israel  more  than  three  thousand  years 
ago  and  continued  to  permeate  its  life  and  its  literature, 
becoming  indeed  a  part  of  the  mental  constitution  of 
the  people. 

While  the  records  of  the  Bible  on  the  subject  may 
not  have  been  fully  appreciated,  the  main  fact  could  not 
be  ignored  and  by  the  wide  diffusion  of  the  Book  it  has 
penetrated  into  every  nook  and  corner  of  the  civilized 


THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL  121 

world  and  changed  institutions  and  governments.  To 
close  with  the  words  of  Zangwill,  the  Bible  “transcends  the 
race  that  produced  it,  like  all  great  literature,  though 
none  other  has,  in  the  same  degree  carried  a  message  to 
every  race  and  grade  of  mankind. 


Voice  of  ferusnlem.  p.  67  (London,  1920).  American  Edition  p.  71 


INDEX  OF  BIBLICAL  PASSAGES 


Genesis 

PAGE 

Exodus 

page 

9.  25  .  . 

6 

21. 

8  .  .  . 

7 

15.  3  .  . 

7 

21. 

9  .  .  . 

7 

17.  9,  11,  12, 

13 

7 

21. 

18,  19 

72 

17.  13  .  . 

35 

21. 

23,  24,  25 

10 

23.  4  .  . 

48 

21. 

26,  27 

8 

23.  5-20  . 

* 

48 

22. 

13  .  .  . 

100 

24.  2  .  . 

• 

7 

22. 

13,  14 

.39.  47 

42.  53  .  . 

• 

7 

22. 

20  .  .  . 

16,  20,  45,  61,  83 

27.  42-45  . 

• 

43 

22. 

20,  21 

88 

29.  14  .  . 

• 

44 

22. 

20-26  .  . 

43 

29.  15  .  . 

« 

44 

22. 

24  .  .  . 

97,  98, 

100,  102 

29.  20  .  . 

• 

44 

22. 

25  .  .  . 

97 

31.  38  .  . 

• 

44 

22. 

25,  26 

100 

41.  56  .  . 

• 

.  .  106 

22. 

27  .  . 

57 

49.  7  .  . 

• 

12 

22. 

30  .  .  . 

21 

49.  15  .  . 

.  .  16, 

17 

23. 

2,  3,  6  . 

115 

Exodus 

23. 

3  .  .  . 

97,  100 

1.  11  .  . 

16 

23. 

6  .  .  . 

100 

1.  11,  14  . 

14 

23. 

6,  11  .  . 

97 

ch.  12 

34 

23. 

9  .  . 

.16,  20, 

61,  83 

12.  6  .  . 

74 

23. 

10,  11 

104 

12.  15  .  . 

50 

23. 

11  .  .  . 

98,  107 

12.  16  .  . 

51 

23. 

12  .  .  . 

.  .25,,  52,  80 

12.  18  .  . 

50 

23. 

14-17  .  . 

95 

12.  19  .  . 

.  50,  51, 

82 

23. 

16  .  .  . 

83 

12.  38  .  . 

61 

23. 

23,  28 

15 

12.  39,  51 

60 

23. 

29  .  .  . 

15 

12.  43  .  . 

.  .21, 

34 

28. 

43. .  .  . 

77 

12.  44  .  . 

.  .34, 

35 

29. 

33  .  .  . 

4 

12.  45  .  . 

34 

30. 

15  .  .  . 

97,  101 

12.  47  .  . 

.  .  34, 

65 

30. 

33  .  .  . 

4 

12.  48  .  . 

36,  59,  66, 

82 

31. 

13-16  .  . 

80 

12.  48,  49 

34 

34. 

21  .  .  . 

80 

12.  49  .  . 

.  .50, 

65 

34. 

22  .  .  . 

82 

13.  7  .  . 

51 

34. 

23  .  .  . 

95 

16.  3  .  . 

74 

35. 

2,  3  .  . 

80 

16.  22,  23 

80 

Leviticus 

16.  26,  29 

80 

4.  13,  14,  21  . 

74 

20.8-11  . 

80 

14.  21  .  .  . 

108 

20.  10  .  . 

.  25,  52, 

80 

16.  29  .  .  . 

.26,  81 

20.  11  .  . 

52 

16.  32-34  .  . 

82 

123 


124  THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


Leviticus 

PAGE 

Leviticus 

PAGE 

17.  3,  4,  8,  9  . 

•  ■ 

55 

25.  45  .  .  . 

• 

49 

17.  9  .  .  . 

56 

25.  47  .  .  . 

• 

49 

17.  10  .  .  . 

56 

25.  47-54  .  . 

38 

17.  12  .  .  . 

56 

25.  50  .  .  . 

33 

17.  15  .  .  . 

21 

25.  50,  53 

45 

17.  15,  16 

77 

25.  53  .  .  . 

34 

18.  21  .  .  . 

56 

26.  25  .  .  . 

10 

18.  26  .  .  . 

.  56 

79 

Numbers 

18.  27  .  .  . 

56 

1.  2,  3 

41 

19.  3,  30  .  . 

80 

1.  51  .  .  . 

4 

19.  9,  10  .  . 

.  .  84, 

108 

3.  10,  38  .  . 

4 

19.  13  .  .  . 

.43,  85,  90  107 

9.  1-14  .  . 

34 

19.  15  .  .  . 

.98,  108, 

115 

9.  14  .  .  . 

.50, 

85 

19.  16,  17,  18 

98 

10.  7  .  .  . 

74 

19.  33  .  .  . 

.  .  .45, 

83 

11.  4  .  .  . 

.61, 

62 

19.  34  .  16,  20, 

61,  63,  86, 

98 

12.  1-5  .  . 

61 

20.  2  .  .  . 

•  •  • 

56 

14.  5  .  .  . 

74 

20.  4,  5  .  . 

57 

15.  2,  13-16  . 

74 

22.  10  .  .  . 

37 

15.  16  .  .  . 

85 

22.  10,  11 

36 

15.  25  .  .  . 

76 

22.  10,  12,  13 

4 

15.  26  .  .  . 

.74, 

76 

22.  13  .  . 

. 

92 

15.  29  .  .  . 

63,  65,  76, 

85 

22.  25  .  .  . 

21 

15.  30  .  .  . 

• 

65 

23.  3  .  .  . 

80 

16.  3,  33  .  . 

74 

23.  7,  8  .  . 

51 

16.  29  .  .  . 

51 

23.  16-21  .  . 

82 

17.  5  .  .  . 

4 

23.  21  .  .  . 

54 

17  12  .  .  . 

, 

74 

23.  22  .  .  . 

.  .  84, 

108 

18.  4,  7  .  . 

4 

23.  24  .  .  . 

82 

18.  22  .  .  . 

77 

23.  24,  25 

52 

ch.  19  .  .  . 

• 

76 

23.  27-32  .  . 

.  .  .51, 

82 

19.  20  .  .  . 

74 

23.  34,  39-43 

83 

20.  4,  6,  10,  12 

74 

23.  40,  42,  43 

55 

20.  14-24  .  . 

24 

23.  42  .  .  . 

62 

21.  22-31  .  . 

24 

23.  43  .  .  . 

63 

22.  4  .  .  . 

74 

24.  10-16  .  . 

57 

28.  18,  25 

51 

24.  17-22  .  . 

71 

29.  1  .  .  . 

.52, 

82 

24.  20  .  .  . 

10 

29.  7  .  .  . 

• 

.51, 

81 

24.  22  .  .  . 

85 

29.  12,  35 

54 

25.  2-7,  19-22 

105 

29.  12-39  .  . 

• 

83 

25.  4-6  .  . 

37 

29.  35  .  .  . 

54 

25.  6  .  .  . 

85 

32.  1-42  .  . 

5 

25.  10  .  .  . 

48 

35.  15  .  ,  . 

73 

25.  23  .  .  . 

48 

35.  22-29  .  . 

73 

25.  34,  40 

37 

Deuteronomy 

25.  35-37  .  . 

•  •  • 

102 

1.  16  .  .  . 

.26, 

85 

25.  44  .  .  . 

•  «  • 

48 

1.  16,  17  .  . 

115 

THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


Deuteronomy 

5.  14  . .  . 

5.  15  .  . 

6.  10,  11  . 

7.  22  .  . 

8.  7,  8,  9  . 

9.  10  .  . 

10.  4  ,  . 

10.  8,  9  . 

10.  18  .  . 
10.  18,  19 

10.  19  .  . 

11.  10,  11 

11.  17  .  . 

12.  5-14,  21, 

14.  3,  21  . 

14.  21  .  . 

14.  23-25  . 

14.  23-27  . 

14.  28,  29 

14.  29  .  . 

15.  1-4  . 

15.  7 

15.  9  .  . 

15.  11  .  . 

15.  16  .  . 

15.  18  .  . 

15.  20  .  . 

16.  2-16  . 

16.  3  .  . 

16.  4  .  . 

16.  8  .  . 

16.9-11  . 

16.  11  .  . 

16.  11,  14 
16.  13-17  . 
16.  14  .  . 

16.  15  .  . 

16.  16  .  . 

16.  19  .  . 

17.  8-10  . 

18.  6  .  . 

18.  6,  7  8 

18.  16  .  . 

19.  14  .  . 

19.  21  .  . 

20.  17  .  . 


125 


26 


PAGE 

Deuteronomy 

PAGE 

25,  52,  80,  81 

23.  2,  3,  4,  9  . 

74 

52 

23.  8  .  .  . 

.16,  61 

14 

23.  16,  17 

45 

15 

23.  20,  21 

102 

14 

23.  21  .  .  . 

21 

74 

24.  10-13  .  . 

109 

74 

24.  12,  15 

109 

13 

24.  14  .  .  . 

98 

91 

24.  14,  15  .  . 

.41,  85 

86 

24.  15  .  .  . 

.90,  107 

16,  20, 

61 

24.  17  .  .  . 

.  85 

91,  115 

13 

24.  19  .  .  . 

91 

1 A 

24.  19,  20,  21 

84,  108' 

1  J. 

24.  20  .  .  . 

91 

24.  20,  21 

90 

76 

24.  21  .  .  . 

92 

.  .21, 

77 

25.  5  .  .  . 

4 

14 

26.  2  .  .  . 

14 

83 

26.  12,  13 

.  77,  85,  90 

.  .77, 

85 

27.  7  .  .  . 

83 

.  .90, 

94 

27.  17  .  .  . 

93 

105 

27.  19  .  .  . 

.85, 

91,  115 

98 

28.  43,  44 

78,  102 

.  98, 

105 

29.  1  .  .  . 

78 

.  98, 

109 

29.  1,  9,  10  . 

25 

45 

29.  8  .  .  . 

78 

33 

29.  9-11  .  . 

78 

14 

29.  13,  14 

78 

14 

31.  9  .  .  . 

78 

.  .50, 

82 

31.  10  .  .  . 

63,  105 

51 

31.  11  .  .  . 

.14,  79 

51 

31.  12,  13 

79 

54 

32.  16  .  .  . 

4 

.  .83, 

94 

33.  4  .  . 

74 

90 

63 

Joshua 

.  .54, 

94 

6.  22-25  .  . 

15 

83 

8.  26  .  .  . 

15 

95 

8.  32,  33,  35  . 

79 

115 

8.  35  .  .  . 

75 

14 

9.  3-15  .  . 

15 

14 

9.  19  .  .  . 

15 

96 

9.  20,  21  .  . 

16 

74 

9.  23  .  .  . 

.  6,  16 

92 

9.  25-27  .  . 

16 

10 

14.  11  .  .  . 

41 

15 

20.  9  .  .  . 

73 

126  THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


Judges 

1.  19  . 

1.  19-25 
1.  21  . 

3.  5  . 

5.  1-31 

5.  15  . 

6.  15  . 

10.  1  . 

ch.  17  . 

17.  5-15 
17.  7-13 
17.  10  . 

19.  12  . 

1  Samuel 
1.  28  . 

ch.  1-3  . 

2.  8  . 

2.  11,  18 
2.  21  . 

3.  1  . 

11.  15  . 

2  Samuel 

20.  24  . 

1  Kings 

4.  6  . 

5.  28 

8.  2,  65 
8.  14,  22 

8.  41  . 

9.  15-19 
9.  20,  21 
9.  20-22 
11.  26  . 

11.  40  . 

12.  3  . 
12.  3,  4 
12.  14,  16 
12.  18  . 
12.  29-33 
12.  42  . 

2  Kings 
4.  23  . 

23.  23  . 

24.  14  . 

25.  12  . 
Isaiah 

1.  7  . 


PAGE 

Isaiah 

18 

2.  2-4  . 

17 

2.  6  . 

18 

3.  14,  15 

19 

5.  8  . 

18 

10.  1,  2 

18 

10.  2  . 

116 

11.  4  . 

18 

16.  14  . 

95 

23.  17  . 

54 

29.  19,  20 

46 

43.  12  . 

45,  96 

58.  13,  14 

21 

61.  5  . 
Jeremiah 

46 

5.  19  . 

46 

5.  28  . 

114 

7.  5  . 

46 

7.  5,  6 

45 

7.  6  . 

46 

16.  18  . 

83 

17.  21-27 
22.  3  . 

26 

22.  13  . 
22.  15-17 

27 

22.  16  . 

27 

22.  17  . 

95 

26.  17  . 

74 

34.  17  . 

22 

34.  19  . 

26 

34.  20  . 

27 

39.  10  . 

30 

51.  2  . 

28 

52.  15,  16 

29 

Ezekiel 

74 

11.  9  . 

29 

14.  7,  8 

29 

16.  3 

27 

18.  2  . 

29 

18.  12  . 

27 

18.  13  . 
22.  7  . 

53 

22.  7,  29 

95 

22.  12  . 

116 

22.  12,13 

116 

22.  29  . 
27.  3  . 

4 

28.  7,  10 

PAGE 

.  .  23 

.  .  21 

.  .  no 

.  .  93 

.  .  no 

.  .  115 

.  .  Ill 

.  .  33 

.  .  103 

.  .  Ill 

.  .  4 

.  .  53 

.  .  4 

.  .  4 

111,  115 
.  .  97 

42,  89,  111 

.  .  85 

.  .  76 

.  .  53 

.45,  85,  89 
42,  97,  111 

.  .  42 

.  .  Ill 

.  .  97 

.  .  74 

,  42,  111 

.  .  42 

.  .  Ill 

.  .  98 

.  .  -'4 

.  .  116 

.  .  4 

.  .  79 

.  .  19 

.  .  112 

.  .  45 

.  .  103 

.  .42,  89 

.  .45,  85 

.  .42,  97 

.  .  112 

.  97,  112 

.  .  103 

.  .  4 


THE 

STATUS 

OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT 

ISRAEL 

127 

Ezekiel 

PAGE 

Proverbs 

PAGE 

30.  12  .  . 

4 

5.  10  .  . 

22 

31.  12  .  . 

4 

6.  24  .  . 

22 

44.  1,  9  . 

21 

7.  5  .  . 

22 

47.  22 

.63,  66 

14.  21  .  . 

42 

Hosea 

14.  31  .  . 

112 

5.  10  .  . 

93 

15.  25  .  . 

92 

7.  9  .  . 

4 

19.  17  .  . 

113 

8.  7,  12  . 

.  .  4 

20.  16  .  . 

22 

12.  10  .  . 

63 

21.  24 

99 

Amos 

22.  16  .  . 

113 

2.  6  .  . 

no 

22.  20  .  . 

93 

2.  7  .  . 

93,  no 

22.  22  .  . 

113 

4.  1  .  . 

no 

23.  10  .  . 

.  '  92 

5.  11  .  . 

, 

, 

no,  116 

27.  13  .  . 

22 

5.  12  .  . 

no 

28.  8  .  . 

103 

7.  13  .  . 

29 

28.  11  .  . 

99 

8.  4  .  . 

no 

29.  14  .  . 

113 

8.  6  .  . 

no 

30.  14  .  . 

113 

Obadiah 

31.  9  .  . 

113 

1.  11  .  . 

21 

31.  24  .  . 

103 

Micah 

Job 

2.1,2 

94 

2.  9  .  . 

58 

2.  5  .  . 

74 

7.  1  .  . 

33 

4.  1-4  .  . 

23 

14.  6  .  . 

33 

Zephaniah 

19.  15  .  . 

.  4,  22 

1.  8  .  . 

21 

24.  3  .  . 

92 

Zechariah  . 

24.  3,  4  . 

113 

7.  9,  10  . 

112 

24.  3-12  . 

88 

7.  10  .  . 

,  , 

89 

24.  9,  10,  11 

113 

Malachi 

40.  30  .  . 

103 

3.  5  .  . 

.85,  89 

Ruth 

Psalms 

2.  8,  9 

88 

15.  5  .  . 

103 

Lamentations 

37.  11  .  . 

114 

5.  2  .  . 

21 

37.  14  .  . 

114 

Ecclesiastes 

37.  25  .  . 

114 

6.  2  .  . 

22 

44.  21  .  . 

4 

Ezra 

69.  9  .  . 

22 

9.  1,  2 

20 

81.  10  .  . 

4 

Nehemiah 

90.  10  .  . 

41 

5.  1-13  . 

112 

109.  10  . 

114 

8.  1-18  . 

83 

109.  16  . 

114 

8.  18  .  . 

95 

144.  8,  11 

22 

10.  32  .  . 

106 

Proverbs 

1  Chronicles 

2.  16  .  . 

22 

13.  2,  4  . 

74 

3.  28  .  . 

113 

28.  8  .  . 

74 

3.  34  .  . 

99 

29.  1,  10,  20 

74 

128  THE  STATUS  OF  LABOR  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL 


Chronicles 

PAGE 

1.  3,  5  .... 

74 

2.  16 . 

27 

6.  3,  12,  13  .  .  . 

74 

6.  32 . 

22 

7.  8,  9  .... 

95 

8.  1-6 . 

26 

8.  7,  8  .... 

27 

8.  7-9 . 

30 

10.  18 . 

27 

20.  5 . 

74 

2  Chronicles 

PAGE 

23.  3 . 

74 

24.  6 . 

74 

28.  14 . 

74 

29.23,28,31,32.  . 

74 

30.17,23,24,25.  . 

74 

30.  25  . 

.18,  75 

Mishnah 

Baba  Mesi'a  8.  1 

47 

New  Testament 

Luke  10.  29-37  . 

40 

^  Date  Due 

f  1 3  * 

J9 

i  _ _ _ 

F  13^ 

t 

1 

OT-^^iSiBPSBP* 

if(3f* 

^ 

1  a 

Mim^m 

1 

1 

I 

i 

■ 

